Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on the...

Assessing the Impacts of Climate

Change on the Built Environment

under NEPA and State EIA Laws:

A Survey of Current Practices and

Recommendations for Model Protocols

By Jessica Wentz

August 2015

© 2015 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law develops legal techniques to fight climate change,

trains law students and lawyers in their use, and provides the legal profession and the public

with up-to-date resources on key topics in climate law and regulation. It works closely with the

scientists at Columbia University's Earth Institute and with a wide range of governmental, non-

governmental and academic organizations.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

Columbia Law School

435 West 116th Street

New York, NY 10027

Tel: +1 (212) 854-3287

Email: [email protected]

Web: http://www.ColumbiaClimateLaw.com

Twitter: @ColumbiaClimate

Blog: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange

Disclaimer: This paper is the responsibility of The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law alone, and does

not reflect the views of Columbia Law School or Columbia University. This paper is an academic study

provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Transmission of the

information is not intended to create, and the receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship

between sender and receiver. No party should act or rely on any information contained in this White

Paper without first seeking the advice of an attorney.

About the author: Jessica Wentz is an Associate Director and Postdoctoral Fellow at the Sabin

Center for Climate Change Law. She previously worked as a Visiting Associate Professor with

the Environmental Law Program at the George Washington University School of Law. She can

be contacted at [email protected].

The June 18, 2015 Workshop that was convened to discuss a draft of this report and the model

protocols was generously supported by the David Sive Memorial Fund.

http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange

Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on the Built Environment under NEPA and State EIA Laws

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law | Columbia Law School i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Climate change and its effects on temperature, precipitation, storm patterns, sea level rise,

and other environmental processes have important implications for the construction, maintenance,

and operation of buildings and infrastructure. The risks posed by climate change in this context are

three-fold. Climate-related phenomena such as flooding and heat waves can directly impair the

performance and longevity of buildings and infrastructure. These phenomena can also alter the

nature and magnitude of environmental impacts associated with a particular project, such as

surface runoff and releases of hazardous substances. Finally, climate change can increase the

vulnerability of the surrounding environment (human and natural) to the environmental impacts

of a project.

One way to prepare for these impacts is to incorporate climate change projections into the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of proposed development and infrastructure projects.

Through EIA, decision-makers can assess the potential impacts of climate change on a proposed

project and the surrounding environment before the project is implemented, thus allowing the

decision-maker to modify design features, develop alternatives, or adopt other measures to

mitigate climate-related risks. The publication of EIA documents also provides a collaborative

mechanism through which agencies and other stakeholders can learn about the risks of climate

change and make recommendations on adaptation and resilience measures that will most

effectively mitigate those risks.

The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated draft guidance which

directs federal agencies to account for the impacts of climate change on proposed projects and the

affected environment when conducting environmental reviews under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ notes that such an analysis falls squarely within the realm of the impact

assessment required by NEPA. A variety of states and foreign jurisdictions have issued similar

directives, either in draft or final form, to ensure that project proponents account for climate risks

when conducting project-level EIA. Some of these directives also require project applicants to

propose risk mitigation measures to improve the resilience of projects and address any significant

environmental impacts that can be traced back to climate-related phenomena.


Sabin Center for Climate Change Law | Columbia Law School ii

Federal agencies in the U.S. have begun to incorporate climate-related considerations into

their NEPA review processes, and have taken the first steps towards addressing the impacts of

climate change on proposed federal projects. However, the scope and depth of this analysis vary

substantially across different agencies and projects, and it is still very rare for an agency to conduct

an in-depth assessment of how climate change may impact a project and its surrounding

environment. This also appears to be the case for state EIA documents, although an in-depth

review of state practice is beyond the scope of this paper.

More specific guidelines or protocols would help to promote consistency in agency practice

and ensure that agencies are adequately accounting for the impacts of climate change when

conducting environmental reviews. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law has therefore

developed a set of model protocols for assessing the impacts of climate change on the built

environment under NEPA and similar laws.

This paper summarizes the legal and empirical research that underpinned the development

of these protocols. Specifically:

Section 1 describes the observed and anticipated impacts of climate change on the built

environment and presents the rationale for incorporating climate risk assessments into

project-level EIA.

Section 2 outlines the legal requirements of NEPA and explains why the consideration of

climate impacts falls squarely within the realm of the environmental analysis conducted by

federal agencies under NEPA. Section 2 also briefly identifies other state, local, and foreign

EIA laws which require consideration of climate change impacts on proposed projects.

Section 3 reviews the existing guidelines for integrating climate impact and vulnerability

assessments into EIA documents, including guidelines developed by governmental as well

as non-governmental actors.

Section 4 describes the results of a survey of how federal EISs currently address the impacts

of climate change on projects subject to NEPA review. Our key findings are that federal

agencies have begun to assess these impacts, but the scope and depth of this analysis vary

substantially across different agencies and projects, and it is still very rare for an agency to


Sabin Center for Climate Change Law | Columbia Law School iii

conduct an in-depth assessment of how climate change may impact a project and its

surrounding environment.

Section 5 summarizes the outcomes of a stakeholder workshop convened by the Sabin

Center on June 18, 2015 to discuss this project with government employees, EIA

consultants, and other interested parties. This section highlights some of the general

comments that we received on the scope and substance of the model protocols, as well as

several case studies on how climate change adaptation and resilience considerations

factored into environmental reviews conducted by workshop participants.

Section 6 contains the model protocols for assessing the impact of climate change on the

built environment under NEPA and similar statutes. These protocols have been revised to

reflect input from the June 18 stakeholder workshop.

This paper is also accompanied by three appendices:

Appendix A provides a list of informational resources that can be used to conduct project-

specific climate impact assessments, organized into two categories: (i) data resources, such

as models, visualization tools, and impact assessments; and (ii) decision-support tools to

facilitate the evaluation of risks and selection of adaptation measures.

Appendix B contains excerpts of climate impact analysis in federal EISs.

Appendix C contains the full list of EISs that we reviewed in our survey of federal EISs

prepared between 2012 and 2014, and identifies which topics related to climate change

impacts and adaptation were covered in each EIS.


Sabin Center for Climate Change Law | Columbia Law School iv

CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Climate Change and the Built Environment ..................................................................................... 2

1.1 Overview of Climate Change Impacts on Buildings and Infrastructure .................... 2

1.2 The Rationale for Project-Level Analysis of Climate Impacts ...................................... 4

2. Legal Context ........................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ............................................................ 7

2.2 Draft Guidance on NEPA and Climate Change ............................................................. 8

2.3 Managing Uncertainty: Insight from the Regulations ................................................... 9

2.4 State, Local, and Foreign Laws ....................................................................................... 10

3. Existing Guidelines and Assessment Tools .................................................................................... 15

3.1 Federal Agencies ............................................................................................................... 16

3.2 State and Local Governments ......................................................................................... 19

3.3 Foreign Jurisdictions ........................................................................................................ 22

3.4 Intergovernmental and Nongovernmental Organizations ......................................... 25

4. Survey of Federal Practice under NEPA ........................................................................................... 27

4.1 Sabin Center Study of Federal EISs, 2009-2011 ............................................................. 27

4.2 Defenders of Wildlife Study of Federal EISs, 2011-2012 ............................................. 29

4.3 Sabin Center Study of Federal EISs, 2012-2014 ............................................................. 30

5. Workshop Outcomes and Case Studies ........................................................................................... 42

5.1 Massachusetts .................................................................................................................... 44

5.2 Washington ........................................................................................................................ 45

5.3 New York ........................................................................................................................... 48

6. Model Protocols .................................................................................................................................... 49

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 59


Sabin Center for Climate Change Law | Columbia Law School 1

INTRODUCTION

Climate change and its effects on temperature, precipitation, storm patterns, sea level rise,

and other environmental processes have important implications for the construction, maintenance,

and operation of buildings and infrastructure. Recognizing this, the Obama Administration has

issued several executive orders directing federal agencies prepare for the impacts of climate

change on federal operations and facilities.1 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has also

issued draft guidance directing federal agencies to account for these impacts when conducting

environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).2

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process provides a useful framework for

addressing the risks of climate change in the context of specific projects.3 Through EIA, decision-

makers can assess the potential impacts of climate change on a proposed project and the

surrounding environment before the project is implemented, thus allowing the decision-maker to

modify design features, develop alternatives, or adopt other measures to mitigate climate-related

risks. The publication of EIA documents also provides a collaborative mechanism through which

agencies and other stakeholders can learn about the impacts of climate change and make

recommendations on appropriate adaptation and resilience measures.

Federal agencies have begun to incorporate climate-related considerations into their NEPA

review processes, and have taken the first steps towards addressing the impacts of climate change

1 Executive Order 13693: Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade (2015); Executive Order 13690:

Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering

Stakeholder Input (2015); Executive Order 13677: Climate-Resilient International Development (2014); Executive Order

13653: Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change (2013); The President’s Climate Action Plan (2013);

Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (2010).

2 CEQ, Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews, 79 Fed. Reg. 77,802 (Dec. 24, 2014).

3 Many commentators have endorsed the utilization of EIA to assess the impacts of climate change on proposed projects.

See, e.g., Teresa Parejo Navajas, Reverse Environmental Assessment Analysis for the Adaptation of Projects, Plans, and Programs

to the Effects of Climate Change in the EU: Evaluation of the Proposal for an EIA Directive, Columbia Public Law Research

Paper No. 14-445 (2015); Sean Capstick et al., Incorporating Climate Change Impacts into Environmental Assessments, IAIA14

Conference Proceedings, 34th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 8-11 April 2014,

Viña del mar, Chile; Michael B. Gerrard, Reverse Environmental Impact Analysis: Effect of Climate Change on Projects, 247(45)

NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (March 8, 2012); S. Agrawala et al., Incorporating Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in

Environmental Impact Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges, OECD Environmental Working Paper No. 24 (OECD

2010); European Commission, White Paper on Adaptation to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action 13

(2009); Inter-American Development Bank, Disaster Risk Management Policy Guidelines (2008); CARICOM, Guide to the

Integration of Climate Change Adaptation into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process (2004); CBD & CARICOM,

Sourcebook on the Integration of Natural Hazards into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process (2004).



on proposed federal projects. However, the scope and depth of this analysis vary substantially

across different agencies and projects, and it is still very rare for an agency to conduct an in-depth

assessment of how climate change may impact a project and its surrounding environment.

CEQ’s latest draft guidance directs agencies to consider this issue during NEPA reviews by

incorporating climate change projections into their assessments of baseline environmental

conditions and environmental impacts from proposed actions. However, the draft guidance does

not contain detailed instructions on how agencies should conduct this analysis. More specific

guidelines or protocols would help to promote consistency in agency practice and ensure that

federal agencies are adequately accounting for the impacts of climate change when conducting

these assessments.

To fill this gap, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law has developed a set of model

protocols for assessing the impacts of climate change on the built environment under NEPA and

state EIA laws. This paper summarizes the empirical and legal research underpinning this project.

The model protocols are presented in Section 6.

1. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Climate change will have far-reaching impacts on buildings and infrastructure. The risks

posed by climate change in this context are three-fold. Climate-related phenomena such as

flooding and heat waves can directly impair the performance and longevity of buildings and

infrastructure. These phenomena can also alter the nature and magnitude of environmental

impacts associated with a particular project, such as surface runoff and releases of hazardous

substances. Finally, climate change can increase the vulnerability of the surrounding environment

(human and natural) to the environmental impacts of a project.

1.1 Overview of Climate Change Impacts on Buildings and Infrastructure

The Third National Climate Assessment, published by the U.S. Global Change Research

Program (USGCRP) in 2014, describes the observed and predicted impacts of climate change on

different sectors of the U.S. economy. Table 1.0 summarizes some of the key findings from that

report as they relate to buildings and physical infrastructure (see next page).



Table 1.0 – Climate Change Impacts on the Built Environment (USGCRP 2014)

Sector Applicable Impacts Key Findings

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t

Increased temperatures

(averages and

extremes)

Increased precipitation

(and flooding, erosion)

Decreased

precipitation, (and

snowmelt, stream flow)

Increased storm

frequency, intensity,

variability

Sea level rise

Water supply (quality and quantity):

Changes in precipitation and runoff, combined with changes in consumption

and withdrawal, have reduced surface and groundwater supplies in many

areas. These trends are expected to continue.

Increased temperatures influence water demand and usage patterns. The

Southwest, Great Plains, and Southeast are particularly vulnerable to changes

in water supply and demand.

Precipitation changes (increases and decreases) can adversely impact water

quality by decreasing supply or increasing run-off.

Impacts on water management structures:

Increased precipitation, rising sea levels, flooding and saltwater intrusion can

adversely affect wastewater facilities and stormwater management systems

(especially along coastlines, low-lying areas).

En

erg

y s

up

ply

an

d u

se



Decreased precipitation

Increased storm


variability

Sea level rise

Direct impacts on infrastructure:

Extreme temperature and weather events are affecting energy production and

delivery facilities, causing supply disruptions and affecting other

infrastructure that depends on energy supply. Impacts expected to increase.

Sea level rise, extreme storm surge events, and high tides will affect coastal

facilities and infrastructure.

Water requirements:

Possible reduction in water supply (see above).

Electricity demand:

Higher summer temperatures will increase electricity use, causing higher peak

loads, while warmer winters will decrease energy demands for heating. Net

electricity use is projected to increase.

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n s

yst

ems



Increased storm


variability

Sea level rise

Impacts from sea level rise and storm surge, extreme weather events, higher

temperatures and heat waves, precipitation changes, Arctic warming, and

other climatic conditions are already affecting the reliability and capacity of

the U.S. transportation system.

Storms and increased precipitation will cause additional flooding, erosion,

landslides, and damage.

Temperature variability and increased average and extreme temperatures will

have adverse impacts on roads and rail tracks.

Sea level rise and storm surge pose a threat to coastal infrastructure, including

airports, ports and harbors, roads, rail lines, tunnels, and bridges.

Urb

an a

nd

Su

bu

rban

Dev

elo

pm

ent



Decreased precipitation

Increased storm


variability

Sea level rise

Heavy rainfall, flooding, rising sea levels, heat waves, and more severe

wildfires pose risks to urban and suburban infrastructure .

Coastal areas are particularly vulnerable.

Climate-related disruptions of services in one infrastructure system almost

always result in disruptions in other infrastructure systems.

Climate vulnerability and adaptive capacity of urban residents and

communities are influenced by social inequalities.



As highlighted in many of these findings, climate change is already affecting much of our

nation’s infrastructure. USGCRP summarizes the observed impacts:

Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern

of continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S.

infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also

increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers,

lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting

of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for

historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such

as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.4

Based on current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trajectories, it is extremely likely that the scope

and severity of these impacts will increase in the coming decades.

1.2 The Rationale for Project-Level Analysis of Climate Impacts

Some concerns have been raised about the feasibility of integrating climate change

projections into EIA at the project level, given the inherent uncertainty about these projections and

the difficulty of downscaling climate models for regional and local impact assessments. But

agencies and EIA consultants frequently confront uncertainty during environmental reviews, and

there are methodologies that can be employed to conduct meaningful assessments in the context of

significant uncertainty.5 Efforts are also being made to provide downscaled climate data and

models that can be easily applied to regional and local impact analysis.6

In 2010, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published

an international EIA survey which found that there is “ample scope for employing EIA procedures

as a vehicle for enhancing the resilience of projects to the impacts of climate change.”7 The report

also found that the project level was “particularly critical for the consideration of climate risks and

for incorporating suitable adaptation measures” owing to the long duration of infrastructure

projects and the fact that these projects can affect the vulnerability of natural and human systems,

4 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES: THE THIRD NATIONAL

CLIMATE ASSESSMENT 13 (2014).

5 For example, the NEPA regulations instruct federal agencies on how to address incomplete or unavailable information

about the environmental impacts of proposed projects. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22.

6 See Appendix A: Informational Resources for an overview of different data and modeling resources that already exist to

aid the assessment of climate impacts on projects and the surrounding environment.

7 OECD (2010), supra note 3, at 3.



leading to maladaptation.8 The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reached a similar

conclusion in a 2015 report, which highlighted the economic risks of climate change and concluded

that better vulnerability assessments, planning processes, and physical preparation would be

needed to reduce the federal government’s fiscal exposure to these risks.9

Opponents of incorporating climate change into project-level EIA have also argued that

NEPA and similar laws only require (or permit) the assessment of a project’s impact on the

environment, and not the impact of the environment on the project.10 The counterpoint to this

argument is that the environmental impacts of a project are a consequence of both project design

and the environmental conditions in which the project is located (e.g., rain falls on a paved surface

and creates runoff). An accurate impact assessment thus requires an accurate characterization of

the baseline environment. To the extent that climate change may influence that baseline, it should

factor into the environmental review process.

This means that decision-makers should account for the impacts of climate change when

describing the natural resources, ecosystems, and communities that will be affected by a project. 11

Decision-makers should also assess the impacts of climate change on the project itself and whether

these impacts may exacerbate any environmental consequences or generate new risks. For

example, if sea level rise or extreme inland precipitation cause or worsen flooding at a hazardous

waste management facility, a chemical storage facility, or a nuclear power plant, dangerous

materials could be released into the environment. Similarly, rising groundwater levels would have

implications for the design of landfills and underground storage facilities, as additional measures

may be required to prevent water contamination. It would also be necessary to account for

increases in average and extreme precipitation events when designing storm water and drainage

8 Id. at 8.

9 GAO, Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by better Managing Climate Change Risks (2015), available at

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/limiting_federal_government_fiscal_exposure/why_did_study. See also RISKY BUSINESS: THE

ECONOMIC RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES (2014), available at http://riskybusiness.org/.

10 The California Court of Appeal endorsed this viewpoint in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust et al. v. City of Los Angeles,

201 Cal.App.4th 455 (2011). For a more detailed discussion of this decision and other California case law, see Section 2.4.

11 See Jones & Stokes Climate Focus Group, Addressing Global Warming in CEQA and NEPA Documents in the Post AB 32

Regulatory Environment 15 (2007): “Consider a project that would create a new industrial plant that discharges

wastewater into a nearby lake. To determine the possible impacts of the discharge on the water body, one has to

characterize the baseline future condition of the lake for the dates that the plant will be in operation. If climate change

may potentially change the depth of the lake within the foreseeable future, one could consider the most conservative lake

depth for baseline analysis.”



systems. As discussed in the following section (“Legal Context”), such considerations fit squarely

within the scope of analysis required by NEPA and other EIA laws.

There are multiple benefits to be realized from incorporating an assessment of climate

change impacts into project-level EIA. The main goal, noted above, would be to facilitate the

successful “climate proofing” of projects and to avoid maladaptation to climate change. Such

efforts can reduce the risk of adverse environmental consequences and reduce the government’s

fiscal exposure in the long term. In addition, OECD notes that EIA is a “well consolidated and

publicly accepted process in many countries and in bilateral and multilateral development co-

operation agencies.”12 Based on these benefits, OECD states that it is probably “more efficient and

effective to broaden the scope of existing EIA modalities to include climate change and adaptation

considerations, as opposed to establishing and implementing parallel procedures for screening

projects for climate change risks.”13

2. LEGAL CONTEXT

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to review the

environmental impacts of major proposed actions and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for any action that has a significant effect on the environment.14 These statements must

describe the affected environment and any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts accruing from

the action and reasonable alternatives.15 The agency conducting this analysis must make a draft EIS

available for public comment and respond to these comments in the final EIS.16 The dual purpose

of these requirements is to ensure that agencies take a “hard look” at the potential consequences of

their activities and disclose this information to the public—the ultimate goal being to promote

better informed decision-making.17

Many states have enacted laws with similar requirements, which are sometimes referred to

as “little NEPAs.” New York, for example, introduced its State Environmental Quality Review Act

12 OECD (2010), supra note 3, at 9.

13 Id.

14 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) § 102, 42 U.S.C. § 4332.

15 NEPA § 102(2)(C) , 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14-1502.16.

16 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.9, 1503.1, 1503.4, 1506.6. 17 Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97-98 (1983).



(SEQRA) in 1975.18 The European Union and various foreign jurisdictions have also enacted laws

that are modeled after NEPA. Section 2.4 highlights some of the existing EIA laws that require

consideration of climate change impacts (either as a result of statutory amendments or

interpretations by agencies and courts). Although an in-depth analysis of these laws is beyond the

scope of this paper, the model protocols presented in Section 6 could be utilized for environmental

reviews conducted under many different EIA regimes.

2.1 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

As noted in CEQ’s draft guidance, considerations relating to the impact of climate change

on a proposed action and its affected environment are:

…squarely within the realm of NEPA, informing decisions on whether to proceed

with and how to design the proposed action so as to minimize impacts on the

environment, as well as informing possible adaptation measures to address these

impacts, ultimately enabling the selection of smarter, more resilient actions.19

The justification for requiring such analysis can be traced back several different statutory and

regulatory provisions.

First, NEPA declares a continuing federal policy “to use all practicable means and

measures… to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future

generations of Americans.”20 In accordance with this policy, NEPA directs all federal agencies to

conduct their programs in a manner which will “assure all Americans safe, healthful, productive,

and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings” and “attain the widest range of beneficial

uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable or

intended consequences,” among other things.21 To accomplish these objectives, it is necessary for

agencies to consider whether climate change may compromise the productivity of their activities

or exacerbate any environmental and public health threats associated with those activities.

18 SEQRA, N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERVATION LAW (ECL) art. 8.

19 2014 Draft Guidance, supra note 2, 79 Fed. Reg. at 77,828-29.

20 NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a).

21 NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(2) and (3).



Second, when preparing an EIS under NEPA, agencies must describe the affected

environment22 and assess the environmental impacts of the project and reasonable alternatives

(including a “no action” alternative).23 As noted above, climate change can increase the risk of

certain impacts, such as spillage from a hazardous waste containment facility. Climate change can

also impact baseline environmental conditions, which would influence the agency’s analysis of the

affected environment and the “no action” alternative. It is therefore necessary for an agency to

account for climate change in order to conduct an accurate impact assessment.

Third, the EIS must describe the purpose of and need for the project,24 the “relationship

between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of

long-term productivity” and “any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which

would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” 25 If climate change

significantly reduces the useful life of a project subject to NEPA or requires extensive repairs (as

with a flooded airport, transit system, or housing project), the benefits of the project may be much

different than those anticipated in an EIS that was prepared without consideration of these issues.

The project may be significantly less productive than otherwise anticipated and additional

resources may be needed to maintain its operation. Thus, sound impact analysis requires

consideration of the future conditions in which the facility will operate.

Fourth and finally, NEPA requires all federal agencies to “recognize the worldwide and

long-range character of environmental problems.”26 The analysis of global climate change and its

effect on agency actions clearly fits within the purview of this mandate.

2.2 Draft Guidance on NEPA and Climate Change

In December 2014, CEQ published “Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and

Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in

NEPA Reviews.”27 The draft guidance clarifies that agencies have an existing legal obligation to

22 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15.

23 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i)-(iii); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16

24 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13.

25 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iv) and (v).

26 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(F).

27 CEQ (2014), supra note 2, 79 Fed. Reg. at 77,802.



consider “the ways in which a changing climate over the life of the proposed project may alter the

overall environmental implications of such actions.”28 Such impacts may include “more frequent

and intense heat waves, more severe wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and

flooding, increased drought, greater sea-level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources,

harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems.”29

The draft guidance instructs agencies to consider how climate change may alter the affected

environment, the environmental impacts of the proposed action, and the environmental impacts of

alternatives to the proposed action. For example, agencies should consider the extent to which

climate change may “increase the vulnerability of a resource, ecosystem, human community”

within the affected environment of the project, both to establish baseline conditions and to

determine if these resources will be more susceptible to impacts or risks posed by the project.30 The

timeframe for this analysis should reflect the anticipated duration of the action and its impacts.31

The guidance highlights several examples of situations where an agency should assess the

implications of climate change for a proposed action, including:

Future projections of rainfall, snow pack, and watershed hydrology should be assessed

when reviewing a proposal that requires water withdrawals from a stream or river.

Future projections of sea level rise, storm patterns, and storm surge should be assessed

when reviewing a proposal for a coastal infrastructure project.

By conducting this analysis, agencies can select alternatives that are more resilient to the effects of

a changing climate, and thus “avoid the environmental and, as applicable, economic consequences

of rebuilding should potential climate change impacts such as sea level rise and more intense

storms shorten the projected life of the project.”32

2.3 Managing Uncertainty: Insight from the Regulations

The regulations implementing NEPA do not specifically address climate change, but they

do discuss how agencies should manage uncertainty during EIS reviews. Specifically, Section

28 Id. at 77,825.

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 Id. at 77,828.

32 Id. at 77,829.



1502.22 instructs agencies to include the following elements in an EIS when the agency cannot

obtain information that is relevant to its analysis of significant environmental impacts from a

proposed action:

1. A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable;

2. A statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to

evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human

environment;

3. A summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human

environment; and

4. The agency's evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or

research methods generally accepted in the scientific community.33

Federal agencies can use this framework to discuss climate change impacts that are highly

uncertain but nonetheless have implications for the environmental consequences of the project.

2.4 State, Local, and Foreign Laws

Several jurisdictions have promulgated laws, policies, or agency guidance requiring the

consideration of climate change effects on actions subject to environmental review. Table 2.0

provides an overview of the applicable requirements and directives under state, local, and foreign

laws (see next page). Massachusetts is the only U.S. jurisdiction that has expressly amended its EIA

statute to require consideration of climate change effects. However, New York State, New York

City, Washington State, and King County, WA, have all issued policies or guidance documents

calling for the consideration of climate change effects and adaptation considerations (at least for

some agencies and some projects).

Of the five foreign jurisdictions on the list, the European Union, Kiribati, and Vanuatu have

all expressly amended their EIA laws to require an analysis of climate change effects.34 Canada and

Fiji have also published guidance directing project applicants to conduct such analysis without

formally amending their EIA statutes or regulations.

33 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22.

34 Several European jurisdictions have introduced policies or guidance to implement the EU Directive on Climate Change

and EIA, but they are not listed in Table 2.0 because they fall within the scope of the legal requirements outlined in the

EU directive. The relevant guidance documents are listed in Section 3: Existing Guidance and Assessment Tools.



Table 2.0 – Legal Requirements to Consider Climate Change Impacts in EIA

Jurisdiction Law Policy / Guidance Content

UNITED STATES

Massachusetts Massachusetts

Environmental

Policy Act

(MEPA) (2009

Amendments)

Draft MEPA Climate

Change Adaptation

and Resiliency Policy

(2014)35

MEPA was amended in 2009 with the following language:

“In considering and issuing permits, licenses, and other

administrative approvals and decisions, the respective

agency, department, board, commission or authority shall

also consider reasonably foreseeable climate change

impacts, including additional greenhouse gas emissions,

and effects, such as predicted sea level rise.”36

New York State

Environmental

Quality Review

Act (SEQRA)

Commissioner’s

Policy – Climate

Change and DEC

Action (2010)37

A 2010 policy document directs the NY State Department

of Environmental Conservation (DEC) staff to “identify

potential adverse impacts from climate change” on all DEC

programs, “incorporate climate change adaptation

strategies into applicable DEC programs, actions and

activities” and to “use the best available scientific

information of environmental conditions resulting from the

impacts of climate change.”38

New York

City, NY

City

Environmental

Quality Review

Act (CEQR)

CEQR Technical

Manual (2014)39

The CEQR Technical Manual states: “…depending on a

project’s sensitivity, location, and useful life, it may be

appropriate to provide a qualitative discussion of the

potential effects of climate change on a proposed project in

environmental review. Such a discussion should focus on

early integration of climate change considerations into the

project and may include proposals to increase climate

resilience and adaptive management strategies to allow for

uncertainties in environmental conditions resulting from

climate change.”40

Washington State

Environmental

Policy Act

(SEPA)

WSDOT, Guidance

for NEPA and SEPA

Project-Level Climate

Change Evaluations

(2014)41

A 2014 guidance document published by the Washington

State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) outlines an

analytical process and provides template language for

assessing the impacts of climate change on all WSDOT

projects subject to NEPA and SEPA.42

35 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Draft MEPA Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Policy (2014).

36 MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 30, § 61, amended by Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), Ch. 298 of the Acts of

2008, § 7. See also MASS. CODE REGS. § 11.12(5)(a).

37 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Commissioner’s Policy – Climate Change and DEC

Action (2010), available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/65034.html.

38 Id. New York State also adopted the Community Risk and Resiliency Act in 2014, which does not specifically amend

SEQRA, but does require the assessment of climate change impacts and risks for certain projects. Similarly, the draft

regulations for the Waterfront Revitalization Program will require consideration of sea level rise and coastal impacts.

39 NYC MAYOR’S OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION (MOEC), CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW (CEQR)

TECHNICAL MANUAL (March 2014).

40 MOEC, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, Ch. 18 in CEQR TECHNICAL MANUAL 18-7 (2014).

41 WSDOT, Guidance for NEPA and SEPA Project-Level Climate Change Evaluations (2014), available at

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BDF7C3DA-4F27-4CD5-8D02-6813027A928B/0/WSDOT_ClimateGuidance.pdf.

42 Id.



King County,

WA

Executive Order

PUT 7-10-1

(2007)

Preparing for Climate

Change: A Guidebook

for Local, Regional,

and State

Governments (2007)43

King County, WA promulgated an executive order which

acknowledges “serious local impacts of global climate

change” and requires that “climate impacts, including but

not limited to those pertaining to greenhouse gases, be

appropriately identified and evaluated when [King

County] departments are acting as the lead in reviewing

the environmental impacts of private or public proposals

pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act.”44

FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS

Canada Canadian

Environmental

Assessment Act

(CEAA)

Incorporating Climate

Change

Considerations in

Environmental

Assessment: General

Guidance for

Practitioners (2003)45

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

published a general guidance document in 2003, which

directs project applicants to conduct a preliminary scoping

for climate change impacts and vulnerability, and to

conduct a more thorough assessment of such impacts

where appropriate.

Nova Scotia,

Canada

Nova Scotia

Environment

Act

Guide to Considering

Climate Change in

Environmental

Assessments in Nova

Scotia (2011)46

In 2011, Nova Scotia adopted regional guidance on how

climate change considerations should be incorporated into

EIA conducted by provincial authorities. This guidance

complements a planning document, Guide to Considering

Climate Change in Project Development in Nova Scotia.47

European

Union

Directive

2014/52/EU

(2014)

EC Guidance on

Integrating Climate

Change and

Biodiversity into

Strategic

Environmental

Assessment (2013)48

EIA should address “the risk of major accidents and/or

disasters which are relevant to the project concerned,

including those caused by climate change, in accordance

with scientific knowledge” and “the vulnerability of the

project to climate change.”49

Fiji Environmental

Management

Act of 2005

Environment Impact

Assessment (EIA)

Guidelines (2008)50

Fiji’s EIA guidelines require project applicants to consider

the vulnerability of a project to natural disasters, taking

into account the future impacts of climate change and sea-

level rise.51 Applicants should also identify any species in

that may be vulnerable to climate change impacts.52

43 The Climate Impacts Group, King County, Washington, & ICLEI, Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local,

Regional, and State Governments (2007), available at http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/snoveretalgb574.pdf.

44 King County, WA, Executive Order: Evaluation of Climate Change Impacts through the State Environmental Policy

Act, PUT 7-10-1 (AEO) (2007).

45 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Environmental Assessment:

General Guidance for Practitioners (2003).

46 Nova Scotia Environment, Guide to Considering Climate Change in Environmental Assessments in Nova Scotia (2011).

47 Nova Scotia Environment, Guide to Considering Climate Change in Project Development in Nova Scotia (2011).

48 European Commission, Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment

(2013).

49 EIA Directive 2014/52/EU (2014), Annex III, §1(f); Annex IV, §5(f).

50 Fiji Department of Environment, Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidelines (2008).

51 Id. at 75. 52 Id. at 70.



Kiribati Environment

Act §33(1)(d)

Adaptation Handbook:

Undertaking Risk

Treatment for Coastal

Climate Change Risks

in the Republic of

Kiribati (2009)53

EIA must include “a description of how climate change and

climate variability may impact on the activity.”54

Vanuatu Environmental

Management

and

Conservation

Act (EMCA)

(2010

Amendment)

CARICOM, Guide to

the Integration of

Climate Change

Adaptation into the

Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA)

Process (2004)55

In 2010, Vanuatu amended the EIA provisions in the

EMCA, changing the definition of “significant

environmental impact” to include “the degree to which the

adaptation to, and mitigation of climate change is

affected.”56

A variety of foreign jurisdictions have also signaled their intention to integrate climate

considerations within EIA processes in policies and planning documents, but these statements fall

short of a legally binding requirement. For example, the Spanish National Climate Change

Adaptation Plan (2006) proposes the development of guidelines and regulations to incorporate

climate change impacts into the EIA process, with a special focus on projects in the water sector.57

The Spanish Ministry of Environment also considers EIA to be an entry point for integrating

adaptation considerations into development projects.58 Other countries which have signaled their

intent to incorporate these considerations into EIA processes include Samoa, 59 the Solomon

Islands,60 the Cook Islands,61 Dominica,62 St. Lucia,63 and Bangladesh.64

53 C. Elrick & R. Kay, Adaptation Handbook: Undertaking Risk Treatment for Coastal Climate Change Risks in the Republic of

Kiribati, prepared for Kiribati Adaptation Project Phase II (KAP II), Government of Kiribati (2009), available at

http://www.coastalmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/adaptation-handbook_kap-ii-component-

1.3.2_low_res.pdf.

54 World Bank, Reducing the Risk of Disasters and Climate Variability in the Pacific Islands – Republic of Kiribati Country

Assessment (2009).

55 CARICOM, Guide to the Integration of Climate Change Adaptation into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process

(2004), available at http://dms.caribbeanclimate.bz/M-Files/openfile.aspx?objtype=0&docid=2358.

56 Environmental Management and Conservation (Amendment) Act of 2010, Section 3 (amending Environmental

Management and Conservation Act of 2002, Section 2).

57 Oficina Española de Cambio Climático, Plan Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático (2006).

58 Oficina Española de Cambio Climático, Plan Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático: Segundo Programa de

Trabajo (2009).

59 Government of Samoa, First National Communication to the UNFCCC (1999); National Adaptation Programme of Actions:

Samoa (2005).

60 Government of Solomon Islands, Solomon Islands: National Adaptation Programme of Actions (2008).

61 Government of Cook Islands, Initial National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (2000).



Notably, California is not among the jurisdictions listed in Table 2.0. This is because there

has been some controversy as to whether the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

requires an evaluation of how climate change will impact a project and its affected environment. In

2007, state lawmakers enacted Senate Bill (SB) 97, which called for an amendment of the CEQA

guidelines to provide for analysis of “mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of

greenhouse gas emissions.”65 The revised CEQA guidelines, adopted via a regulatory amendment

in 2010, specified that Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) prepared under CEQA should

“evaluate any potentially significant impacts of locating development in other areas susceptible to

hazardous conditions (e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas) as identified in authoritative

hazard maps, risks assessments or in land use plans addressing such hazards areas.”66 According

to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research this means that “lead agencies must analyze

potentially significant impacts associated with placing projects in hazardous locations, including

locations potentially affected by climate change.”67

However, in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011), the California Court of

Appeal, Second District, held that this component of the CEQA guidelines was invalid because

“the purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the

significant effects of the environment on the project.”68 According to the Court, “identifying the

effects on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmental setting is

neither consistent with CEQA's legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes.”69

Thus, the

Court held that the EIR for a real estate development was not required to discuss the impact of sea

level rise on the project.

62 Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica, Initial National Communication of the Commonwealth of Dominica under

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2001).

63 Government of Saint Lucia, Saint Lucia’s Initial National Communication Climate Change (2001).

64 Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, National Water Management Plan Project; Guidelines for

Environmental Assessment of Water Management (Flood Control, Drainage and Irrigation) Projects (2005).

65 Cal. S.B. 97(2007), § 1 (2007), amending CAL. PUB. RES. CODE. § 21083.05.

66 CAL. CODE REGS. Tit. 14, § 15126.2.

67 OPR, CEQA and Climate Change, http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_ceqaandclimatechange.php.

68 Ballona Wetlands Land Trust et al. v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473 (2011).

69 Id. at 474.



Despite this decision, California agencies still consider climate risks when conducting

environmental reviews under CEQA.70 There have also been at least two court decisions holding

that consideration of sea level rise does fall within the scope of CEQA considerations, at least to the

extent that it has implications for the environmental consequences of a project. In Sierra Club v.

City of Oxnard, a California Superior Court issued a trial order which required a local government

to evaluate the impacts of sea level rise on a proposed mixed-use development project.71 In No

Wetlands Landfill Expansion v. County of Marin, the California Appellate Court affirmed a decision

holding that an EIR had properly considered sea level rise in an EIR for a proposed landfill

expansion, even though the landfill was located miles from the ocean, because sea level rise may

impact the level of waterways adjacent to the ocean.72 Both cases held that Ballona Wetlands was not

controlling because it did not address whether an EIR should address sea level rise to the extent

that it may alter the affected environment or the environmental impacts of the project.73 The

decision in Sierra Club v. City of Oxnard also questioned the rule in Ballona Wetlands (that EIRs need

not evaluate the significant effects of the environment on the project), noting that land use

compatibility is an “integral part of EIR analysis” and a “two-way street” which requires

consideration of whether a project is located in an area subject to hazards such as sea level rise.74

3. EXISTING GUIDELINES AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS

There are a variety of existing guidelines and assessment tools that describe how agencies

and project applicants should assess the impacts of climate change on a project and its affected

environment. These resources were consulted prior to drafting the model protocols set forth in

70 This finding is based on our review of federal EISs located in California, which were prepared in accordance with both

NEPA and CEQA, and which routinely reviewed sea level rise and other climate change impacts on projects, as well as

an independent review of approximately 20 EIRs prepared under CEQA.

71 Sierra Club v. City of Oxnard, 2012 WL 7659201 (Cal.Super.) (Trial Order).

72 No Wetlands Landfill Expansion v. County of Marin, 204 Cal. App. 4th 573 (2012), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 2014 WL

7036032 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2014).

73 See No Wetlands Landfill, 204 Cal. App. at FN 9 (“But Ballona Wetlands is distinguishable because, although the EIR

may not specifically say so, future sea rise here presumably would not only impact the project but would also impact the

environment by contaminating waterways”); Sierra Club, 2012 WL 7659201 at 47 (noting that the project at issue may

have significant adverse consequences on the proper inland migration of wetlands and related biota in light of sea level

rise, and this analysis involves “the significant effects of the NSP on the environment”).

74 Sierra Club, 2012 WL 7659201 at 47.



Section 6. They include official guidance documents issued by government agencies, as well as

technical guides published by intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations. Notably,

many of these documents were published in the absence of any express amendment to EIA laws,

based on an understanding that the consideration of how climate change will impact a project and

its surrounding environment already fall within the scope of existing EIA requirements.

This section reviews the existing guidance documents and assessment tools, organized by

source: (i) U.S. federal agencies, (ii) U.S. state and local jurisdictions, (iii) foreign jurisdictions, and

(iv) intergovernmental and nongovernmental actors, including development banks and foreign aid

agencies. 75 The documents listed in this section were specifically developed for EIA purposes or

contain provisions which are directly relevant to the EIA process. As such, they do not reflect the

full range of planning guidelines for climate change adaptation.

3.1 Federal Agencies

Executive Order 13,653 directed all federal agencies to prepare for the impacts of climate

change on their operations and facilities.76 In fulfillment of this order, federal agencies have begun

to assess their vulnerability to climate change and develop agency-wide adaptation plans. Many of

these climate impact and vulnerability assessments contain data that is relevant to project-level

EIA, and are thus listed in Appendix A: Informational Resources.

Although federal agencies have published numerous policy and planning documents on

climate change adaptation and resilience, only a few agencies have published guidance on how

these considerations should be incorporated into environmental reviews conducted under NEPA.

Nor have these agencies begun to routinely account for such considerations in EISs. The

Department of Transportation (DOT), for example, has published a Climate Adaptation Plan and a

variety of other planning documents,77 but it does not typically discuss the effects of climate

change on proposed transportation projects in NEPA reviews.78

75 These documents are also available on the Sabin Center website, http://web.law.columbia.edu/climate-

change/resources/nepa-and-state-nepa-eis-resource-center/eia-guidelines-assessing-climate-risk. 76 Executive Order 13653: Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change (2013).

77 See DOT, Adaptation Planning, http://climate.dot.gov/impacts-adaptations/planning.html.

78 For additional details, see the discussion of our Federal EIS survey in Section 4.



Table 3.1 lists the relevant guidance documents and assessment tools that have been

published by federal agencies. These include several guidance documents that specifically discuss

how agencies should assess climate change effects in NEPA reviews, as well as a selection of other

resources that could be used in the EIA context (e.g., guidelines on how to conduct climate change

vulnerability assessments).

Table 3.1 - U.S. Federal Agency Guidance and Assessment Frameworks

Agency Guidance / Framework Content

Council on

Environmental

Quality (CEQ)

Revised Draft Guidance for Federal

Departments and Agencies on

Consideration of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions and the Effects of Climate

Change in NEPA Reviews (2014)79

CEQ’s guidance instructs agencies to consider climate-

related impacts when assessing (i) the affected

environment, (ii) the environmental impacts of the

proposed action, and (iii) the environmental impacts of

alternatives to the proposed action.

Department of

Defense (DOD)

Water Resource Policies and

Authorities Incorporating Sea-Level

Change Considerations in Civil Works

Programs (2009)80

DOD published guidance for incorporating the direct and

indirect physical effects of projected future sea-level

change in managing, planning, engineering, designing,

constructing, operating, and maintaining USACE projects

and systems of projects.

Department of

Transportation

(DOT)

Highways in the Coastal Environment:

Assessing Extreme Events (2014)81

This engineering circular provides technical guidance

and methods for assessing the vulnerability of coastal

transportation facilities to extreme events and climate

change, focusing on sea level rise, storm surge, and

waves.

Strategic Issues Facing Transportation,

Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme

Weather Events, and the Highway

System: Practitioner’s Guide and

Research Report (2014)82

This report outlines strategic adaptation considerations,

taking into account the likely impacts of climate change

through 2050 in the planning, design, construction,

operation, and maintenance of infrastructure assets in the

United States (and through 2100 for sea-level rise).

Impacts of Climate Change and

Variability on Transportation Systems

and Infrastructure: The Gulf Coast

Study, Phase 2, Task 3.1, Screening for

Vulnerability (2014)83

This study outlines a screening approach that helps

identify which assets could be considered more likely to

be vulnerable to future climate conditions.

79 CEQ (2014), supra note 2.

80 DOD, Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs,

Engineering Circular No. 1165-2-211 (2009).

81 DOT, Highways in the Coastal Environment: Assessing Extreme Events, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 25, Vol.

2 (2014).

82 DOT,: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System:

Practitioner’s Guide and Research Report, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 750 (2014).

83 DOT, Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: The Gulf Coast Study, Phase 2,

Task 3.1, Screening for Vulnerability, in ENGINEERING ASSESSMENTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION MEASURES,

FWHA-HEP-15-004 (2014).



Department of

Transportation

(DOT), cont’d

Impacts of Climate Change and

Variability on Transportation Systems

and Infrastructure, The Gulf Coast

Study, Phase 2, Task 3.2 (2014)84

This study discusses a series of engineering assessments

on specific transportation facilities in Mobile that

evaluated whether those facilities might be vulnerable to

projected changes in climate, and what specific

adaptation measures could be effective in mitigating

those vulnerabilities. It includes a description of the

climate impact assessment process used, as well as

findings that may apply more generally to engineering

design practices, operations and maintenance practices,

and other lessons learned.

Federal Highway Administration,

Climate Change & Extreme Weather

Vulnerability Assessment Framework

(2012)85

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s)

Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability

Assessment Framework is a guide for transportation

agencies interested in assessing their vulnerability to

climate change and extreme weather events. It gives an

overview of key steps in conducting vulnerability

assessments and uses in-practice examples to

demonstrate a variety of ways to gather and process

information.

A Framework for Considering Climate

Change in Transportation and Land

Use Scenario Planning: Lessons

Learned from an Interagency Pilot

Project on Cape Cod: Final

Report (2011)86

The Interagency Transportation, Land Use, and Climate

Change Pilot Project utilized a scenario planning process

to develop a multi-agency transportation- and land use-

focused development strategy for Cape Cod,

Massachusetts, with the intention of achieving a

reduction in future greenhouse gas emissions and

considering the potential impacts of sea-level rise on the

region. The outcome document is intended to inform the

region’s long-range transportation planning and other

related efforts, as well as the planning efforts of local,

state, and federal agencies.

Environmental

Protection Agency

(EPA)

EIA Technical Review Guideline: Non-

Metal and Metal Mining Volume 1

(2011)87

This is a general guidance document for EIA of mining

facilities. It instructs engineers to consider the impacts of

global climate change, including projections of increased

extreme weather events, e.g., in the design of tailings

management systems. But it does not contain extensive

guidance on how to conduct such assessments.

General Services

Association (GSA)

Sustainable Facilities Tool: Climate

Adaptation88

As part of its Sustainable Facilities tool, GSA has

introduced a “climate change risk workshop process”

that combines best practices from the federal adaptation

community to help users identify climate risks and

develop strategies to secure vulnerable real property

investments and supply chains. It prescribes a multi-step

84 Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure, The Gulf Coast Study, Phase 2, Task

3.2, in ENGINEERING ASSESSMENTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION MEASURES, FWHA-HEP-15-004 (2014).

85 FHWA, Climate Change & Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Framework (2012).

86 DOT, A Framework for Considering Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Scenario Planning: Lessons Learned from

an Interagency Pilot Project on Cape Cod: Final Report (2011).

87 EPA, EIA Technical Review Guideline: Non-Metal and Metal Mining Volume 1 (2011).

88 GSA, Sustainable Facilities Tool: Climate Adaptation, https://sftool.gov/plan/430/climate-adaptation.



process for conducting vulnerability assessments and

implementing adaptation measures. The tool is intended

to help assess the vulnerability of specific assets and

infrastructure to climate change; it does not provide

instruction on how to assess environmental impacts of a

project in light of climate change.

National Oceanic

and Atmospheric

Administration

(NOAA)

Adapting to Climate Change: A

Planning Guide for State Coastal

Managers (2010)89

The purpose of this guide is to help U.S. state and

territorial (state) coastal managers develop and

implement adaptation plans to reduce the impacts and

consequences of climate change and climate variability

(climate change) in their purview. It focuses primarily on

providing support for broader planning processes, but

does contain some relevant guidelines for assessing

physical vulnerability to climate change and

implementing adaptation measures.

US Agency for

International

Development

(USAID)

Adapting to Climate Variability and

Change: A Guidance Manual for

Development Planning (2007)90

This guidance manual takes a broad perspective on

adaptation planning, but it does outline an approach for

project-level vulnerability risk assessment and the

selection of adaptation options. See page 11 for a useful

diagram of the approach.

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

(USACE)

How to Incorporate SLR in Civil Works

Programs (2011)91

This USACE circular provides guidance for incorporating

the direct and indirect physical effects of projected future

sea-level change across the project life cycle in managing,

planning, engineering, designing, constructing,

operating, and maintaining USACE projects and systems

of projects.

U.S. Forest

Service (USFS)

Climate Change Considerations in

Project Level NEPA Analysis (2009)92

This USFS guide primarily concerns land use actions and

climate change mitigation, but includes relevant

information for assessing climate change impacts on

baseline environmental conditions and implications for

the vulnerability of the affected environment.

Recommends that EIS preparers consider measures to

enhance adaptive capacity in alternatives analysis.

3.2 State and Local Governments

Several states, including California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington have

developed guidelines for assessing the impacts of climate change on projects undergoing EIA. The

legal basis for these guidelines is discussed in Section 4.2. A handful of localities (New York, NY,

89 NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide for State

Coastal Managers (2010).

90 USAID, Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A Guidance Manual for Development Planning (2007).

91 USACE, How to Incorporate SLR in Civil Works Programs, USACE Circular No. 2265-2-212 (2011).

92 USFS, Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis (2009).



San Francisco, CA, and King County, WA) have also generated their own guidelines for such

assessments. Table 4.2 lists these documents.

Table 3.2. State and Local Government Guidance and Assessment Frameworks

Jurisdiction Guidance / Framework Content

California Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance

(2015)93

This guidance document outlines a process for addressing sea

level rise in local coastal programs and coastal development

permits.

California Department of Water

Resources, Climate Change

Handbook for Regional Water

Planning (2011)94

Developed cooperatively by the CA Department of Water

Resources (DWR), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Resources Legacy Fund, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning

provides a framework for considering climate change in water

management planning. Key decision considerations, resources,

tools, and decision options are presented that will guide resource

managers and planners as they develop means of adapting their

programs to a changing climate.

California Department of

Transportation, Guidance on

Incorporating Sea Level Rise: For

use in the planning and

development of project initiation

documents (2011)95

This document is similar to sea-level rise guidance document

noted above, but with specific focus on integrating sea level rise

considerations into transportation projects.

San Francisco,

CA

Guidance for Incorporating Sea

Level Rise into Capital Planning in

San Francisco: Assessing

Vulnerability, Risk, and

Adaptation (2014)96

This guidance provides a framework for considering sea level rise

within the capital planning processes for the City and County of

San Francisco, CA. The guidance includes information on:

official estimates of sea level rise

sea level rise scenario selection

sea level rise inundation mapping

vulnerability and risk assessment

adaptation planning

permitting and regulatory considerations

It also includes examples of how the guidance would be applied

with respect to different types of projects.

Massachusetts Draft MEPA Climate Change

Adaptation and Resiliency Policy

(2014)97

The draft MEPA policy provides guidance on how proponents

should assess the impacts of climate change in EIRs. It identifies

three key types of impacts that should be evaluated:

Sea level rise, coastal flooding and storm surge

93 CA Coastal Commission, Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance (2013).

94 CA Department of Water Resources, Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning (2011).

95 CA Department of Transportation, Guidance on Incorporating Sea Level Rise: For use in the planning and development of

project initiation documents (2011), available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/sealevel/guide_incorp_slr.pdf.

96 Sea Level Rise Committee of SF Adapt for the San Francisco Capital Planning Committee, Guidance for Incorporating Sea

Level Rise into Capital Planning in San Francisco: Assessing Vulnerability, Risk, and Adaptation (2014).

97 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Draft MEPA Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Policy (2014).



Impacts associated with changes in precipitation

Impacts associated with changes in temperature

It requires preparation of a “climate impact assessment” to

“evaluate how a project may be impacted by climate change

related events and how the project itself may contribute to, or

reduce, climate change impacts. Required elements include:

1. Detailed description of the site and proposed project

2. Evaluation of how climate change may impact the

project site and proposed infrastructure

3. Evaluation of mitigation alternative and measures to

identify commitments

The guidance also provides guidance on how to address

uncertainty, risk analysis and adaptive capacity.

New York Commissioner’s Policy: Climate

Change and DEC Action (2010)98

This policy document directs the NY State Department of

Environmental Conservation (DEC) staff to “identify potential

adverse impacts from climate change” on all DEC programs,

“incorporate climate change adaptation strategies into applicable

DEC programs, actions and activities” and to “use the best

available scientific information of environmental conditions

resulting from the impacts of climate change.”

New York City,

NY

CEQR Technical Manual (2014)99

The CEQR technical manual does not provide detailed guidance,

but it does include limited instruction on how and when agencies

should consider climate change effects in CEQR reviews. E.g., the

manual notes that the analysis “should focus on early integration

of climate change considerations into the project and may include

proposals to increase climate resilience and adaptive management

strategies to allow for uncertainties… resulting from climate

change.”

Washington WSDOT, Guidance for NEPA and

SEPA Project-Level Climate

Change Evaluations (2014)100

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

guidance specifies an analytical process and template language

for assessing the impacts of climate change on all WSDOT

projects subject to NEPA and SEPA.

King County,

WA

King County, Climate Impacts

Group, and ICLEI, Preparing for

Climate Change: A Guidebook for

Local, Regional, and State

Governments (2007)101

This guidebook provides step-by-step guidance on how state and

local decision-makers can prepare for the impacts of climate

change within their jurisdiction. It does not specifically discuss

integrating climate risk into EIA, but it does provide some

guidance on vulnerability and risk assessments for physical

infrastructure.

98 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Commissioner’s Policy: Climate Change and DEC Action (2010).

99 NYC Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, Ch. 18 in CEQR

TECHNICAL MANUAL 18-7 (2014).

100 WSDOT, Guidance for NEPA and SEPA Project-Level Climate Change Evaluations (2014).

101 King County, Climate Impacts Group, and ICLEI, Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State

Governments (2007).



3.3 Foreign Jurisdictions

The European Commission, Canada, Kiribati, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the

United Kingdom have promulgated guidance on climate risk assessment in EIA. These guidance

documents are typically more detailed than the federal and state resources identified above, but

not as detailed as the intergovernmental and nongovernmental resources discussed in the

following section. European Commission guidelines are included in this section because they are

attached to a legally binding directive and are implemented at the national level by member states.

Table 3.3. Guidance and Assessment Frameworks from Other Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Guidance / Framework Content

European

Commission

European Commission (EC),

Guidance on Integrating Climate

Change and Biodiversity into

Strategic Environmental Assessment

(2013)102

The EC guidance outlines overarching principles as well as

pragmatic considerations for addressing climate change

(mitigation and adaptation) as well as biodiversity in EIA.

Provides a list of key questions for identifying climate change

adaptation issues, and lists the considerations that should

factor into the assessment of how climate change will impact

the environmental baseline, the vulnerability of built

infrastructure, and adaptation opportunities.

Guidelines for Project Managers:

Making Vulnerable Investments

Climate Resilient (2012)103

These guidelines form part of the overall EU effort to

mainstream climate change adaptation, following on from the

White Paper on Adapting to Climate Change published by the

Commission in 2009. They are designed to provide support to

developers of physical assets and infrastructure. They provide

information on the steps that can be undertaken to integrate

climate resilience within a familiar project lifecycle appraisal

practiced by project developers.

Canada Canadian Environmental

Assessment Agency, Incorporating

Climate Change Considerations in

Environmental Assessment: General

Guidance for Practitioners (2003) 104

Canada’s general guidance document provides instruction on

how to evaluate climate impacts and project vulnerability

during environmental reviews conducted under the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act. It includes the following:

Methods that can be used to obtain and evaluate

information concerning the impacts of climate change

on a project

Key sources of information that practitioners can use

to address climate change considerations in project

102 European Commission (EC), Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental

Assessment (2013).

103 This is a report submitted to the European Commission (EC), as opposed to a formal guideline promulgated by the

EC. As such, these guidelines are not binding on member states. Climate Risk Management Ltd., Guidelines for Project

Managers: Making Vulnerable Investments Climate Resilient, report prepared for the European Commission (2012).

104 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Incorporating Climate Change Considerations in Environmental Assessment:

General Guidance for Practitioners (2003).



environmental assessments

Methodology to encourage consistent consideration

of climate change in the environmental assessment

process across federal, provincial and territorial

jurisdictions

The guidance indicates that, where the risks associated with

climate change are associated with the private sector only, the

project proponent can choose to absorb this risk. However, if

the risks could potentially impact the project, they must be

accounted for (and possibly mitigated) in the EIS.

It also outlines a five step process for EIA:

1 – Preliminary scope for impacts considerations

2 – Identify impacts for more detailed assessment

3 – Assess impacts and risks

4 – Develop impact management plans

5 – Monitoring, follow-up and adaptive management

British

Columbia,

Canada

Climate Change Adaption Guidelines

for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood

Hazard Land Use (2011)105

This document provides guidelines for the design of sea dikes

to protect low lying lands that are exposed to coastal flood

hazards arising from their exposure to the sea and to expected

sea level rise due to climate change.

Nova Scotia,

Canada

Guide to Considering Climate

Change in Environmental

Assessments in Nova Scotia (2011)106

This guide describes how climate change considerations

should be incorporated into EIA processes and components of

EIA documents, including: (1) project description, (2) existing

environment, (3) issue scoping, (4) identification of valued

environmental components, (5) impact assessment, (6)

identification of significant impacts, (7) effects of the

environment on the project, (8) mitigation and monitoring.

Recommends including an adaptation plan for projects that

are identified as medium or high risk for climate change

impacts.

Kiribati Adaptation Handbook: Undertaking

Risk Treatment for Coastal Climate

Change Risks in the Republic of

Kiribati (2009)107

This handbook outlines a step-by-step procedure for

reviewing climate-related risks (primarily coastal risks) and

selecting risk mitigation measures.

Netherlands The NCEA’s Recommendations on

Climate Change in Environmental

Assessment (2009)108

This paper describes the NCEA’s approach to assessing

climate change adaptation during the EIA process. Notes that

the assessment depends on circumstantial factors, including

the local climatological impacts in the long and short term; the

nature of the area in which the adaptation must take place; an

estimate of the risks; how the additional short-term costs relate

105 BC Ministry of Environment, Climate Change Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use (2011).

106 Nova Scotia Environment, Guide to Considering Climate Change in Environmental Assessments in Nova Scotia (2011). For a

2003 version of this guide, see ClimAdapt, Practitioner’s Guide: Incorporating Climate Change into the Environmental Impact

Assessment Process (2003).

107 C. Elrick & R. Kay, Adaptation Handbook: Undertaking Risk Treatment for Coastal Climate Change Risks in the Republic of

Kiribati, Prepared for the Kiribati Adaptation Project Phase II (KAP II), Government of Kiribati (2009).

108 Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), The NCEA’s Recommendations on Climate Change in

Environmental Assessment (2009).



to the costs avoided in the longer term (i.e. costs that increase

as a result of management and maintenance, costs of later

compulsory modifications, and costs incurred because there is

now no room for other functions, such as water storage).

If adaptation is deemed to be a factor of significance, the

NCEA requires information to be given on how the initiative

can best respond to the impacts of climate change: how the

risk of damage can be limited, and at the same time how the

quality of life, the spatial quality and the safety can be

maintained or enhanced. They also require information to be

given about whether the project might hamper necessary

adaptation measures in the future, for example by taking up

space and thereby making it no longer possible to store water.

New Zealand Climate Change Effects and Impacts

Assessment: A Guidance Manual for

Local Government in New Zealand

(2008)109

This Guidance Manual is designed to help local governments

identify and quantify opportunities and hazards that climate

change poses for their functions, responsibilities and

infrastructure. It provides projections of future climate change

in New Zealand, identifies potential effects on local

government functions and services, outlines methods for

assessing the likely magnitude of such effects and explains

how this information can be applied to assess the risk

associated with various climate change impacts. It also

provides guidance on incorporating climate risk assessment

into local government regulatory, assessment and planning

processes.

United

Kingdom

Strategic Environmental Assessment

and Climate Change: Guidance for

Practitioners (2011)110

This guidance provides general recommendations on how

climate change issues can be considered in strategic

environmental assessments (SEA) in England and Wales. It

presents information on the causes and impacts of climate

change and how they can be described and evaluated in SEA.

It also describes how adaptation and mitigation measures can

be developed through SEA.

Greater London Authority (GLA),

Adapting to Climate Change: A

Checklist for Development. London:

London Climate Change Partnership

(2005)111

The overall aims of the document are to assist developers and

their design teams to future- proof developments at the design

stage, to incorporate resilience to climate change impacts

within existing communities, and to help planners scrutinizing

planning applications. The resulting checklist provides a

useful framework for reviewing climate change impacts on

urban ventilation and cooling, urban drainage and flood risk,

water resources, and outdoor spaces.

109 New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Climate Change Effects and Impacts Assessment: A Guidance Manual for Local

Government in New Zealand (2008).

110 UK Environment Agency, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Climate Change: Guidance for Practitioners (2011).

111 Greater London Authority (GLA), Adapting to Climate Change: A Checklist for Development. London: London Climate

Change Partnership (2005).



3.4 Intergovernmental and Nongovernmental Organizations

A variety of different intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations have issued

voluntary guidelines and protocols to support the assessment of climate risks in the context of EIA

and development planning. These resources vary substantially in terms of scope and technical

detail. The IEMA Principles on Climate Change Adaptation and EIA (2010) are particularly useful

for the purpose of developing legal protocols for climate risk assessment, as they provide clear

direction without overly constraining the discretion of agencies and project proponents that will

conduct such assessments.

Table 3.4. Intergovernmental and Nongovernmental Guidance and Assessment Frameworks

Organization Title Content

Caribbean

Community and

Common Market

(CARICOM)

Guide to the Integration of

Climate Change Adaptation

into the Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA)

Process (2004)112

This guide prescribes a six step process for addressing climate change

effects in EIA in Caribbean countries:

1 – Define project and alternatives

2 – Conduct preliminary vulnerability assessment

3 – Conduct initial screening for climate change impacts and risks

4 – Scoping: identify key issues and information needs

5 – Assessment and evaluation

6 – Develop an environmental management plan

Engineers

Canada, Public

Infrastructure

Engineering

Vulnerability

Committee

(PIEVC)

PIEVC Engineering Protocol

for Infrastructure

Vulnerability Assessment

and Adaptation to a

Changing Climate (2011)113

This is a very detailed technical protocol for assessing the

vulnerability of new and existing infrastructure to the impacts of

climate change. It provides information on:

Data gathering and sufficiency (including a list of climate data

resources, focused on Canada)

Risk assessments

Engineering analysis

The protocol is focused on technical rather than legal considerations.

European Spatial

Planning

(ESPACE)

Climate Change Impacts

and Spatial Planning

Decision Support

Guidance (2008)114

Concentrating on climate change adaptation, this guidance document

presents a series of tools which can be used to assist planners in

carrying out their own high level climate change risk assessment on

development options. The guidance contains several tools to help

spatial planners consider potential climate change impacts when

evaluating different planning options.

112 CARICOM, Guide to the Integration of Climate Change Adaptation into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process

(2004).

113 Engineers Canada, PIEVC Engineering Protocol for Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation to a Changing

Climate (2011).

114 ESPACE, Climate Change Impacts and Spatial Planning Decision Support Guidance (2008).



Institute of

Environmental

Management &

Assessment

(IEMA)

Principles on Climate

Change Adaptation & EIA

(2010)115

These principles establish a framework for integrating climate change

considerations into EIA through the application of 20 principles. These

principles are prescriptive but not overly technical. For example:

Principle 11 (Significance) - Where the EIA identifies impacts likely

to be generated as a consequence of predicted changes in the climate

their significance should be evaluated based on a combination of:

Scenarios: an impact’s likelihood under a range of climate

scenarios;

Vulnerability: a receptor’s vulnerability to existing climatic

variations; and

Resilience: a receptor’s ability to absorb such disturbance and

continue to function.

Where the EIA identifies that the likely consequences of climate

change pose significant risk to a project’s ability to effectively function

in the future, the assessment should aim to ensure the costs of not

adapting are properly considered in the design process.

International

Association for

Impact

Assessment

Climate Change in Impact

Assessment: International

Best Practice Principles

(2012)116

These best practice principles are intended to help practitioners

integrate climate change considerations into both project-level and

strategy-level impact assessments. The protocols deal with both

mitigation and adaptation. The protocols deal with screening and

scoping for climate impacts, refining project baselines, conducting

vulnerability assessments, identifying adaptation objectives and

measures to implement those objectives, using the best available

science, discussing uncertainty, and follow-up assessments / adaptive

management.

Organization for

Economic

Cooperation and

Development

(OECD)

Incorporating Climate

Change Impacts and

Adaptation in

Environmental Impact

Assessments: Opportunities

and Challenges (2010)117

This report identifies key considerations for EIA of climate risks and

adaptation options and outlines a rationale for assessing such risks in

the EIA context. It does not, however, contain specific guidelines on

how to conduct that assessment.

Strategic Environmental

Assessment and Adaptation

to Climate Change (2008).118

This is one in a series of Advisory Notes that supplement the

OECD/DAC Good Practice Guidance on Strategic Environmental

Assessment (SEA) (OECD/DAC 2006). The Guidance provides a broad

framework, steps and principles of SEA application across the full

range of policies, plans and programmes. This Advisory note

supplements that analysis with additional recommendations on

addressing climate change adaptation through SEA.

115 IEMA Principles on Climate Change Adaptation & EIA (2010).

116 P. Byer et al., Climate Change in Impact Assessment: International Best Practice Principles, Special Publication Series No. 8

(International Association for Impact Assessment 2012).

117 OECD, Incorporating Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Environmental Impact Assessments: Opportunities and

Challenges (2010).

118 OECD, Advisory Note: Strategic Environmental Assessment and Adaptation to Climate Change (2008).



4. SURVEY OF FEDERAL PRACTICE UNDER NEPA

This section describes the results of several studies examining how federal EISs assessed

the impacts of climate change on proposed. These surveys show that it has become increasingly

common for federal agencies to address these issues. However, in the absence of final guidance

from CEQ, many EISs still fail to account for the impacts of climate change on the project and its

affected environment. In those EISs that do consider such impacts, the scope and depth of the

analysis varies substantially, and it is still very rare for an agency to conduct an in-depth

assessment of how climate change may affect a project and its surrounding environment.

4.1 Sabin Center Study of Federal EISs, 2009-2011

The Sabin Center conducted two previous studies of how federal EISs engaged with issues

related to climate change. In July 2012, the Center published “Consideration of Climate Change in

Federal EISs, 2009 – 2011,” which tracked the analysis of climate change in 227 EISs prepared

between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. 119 One of the analytical areas covered in that

paper was the impact climate change on the project.120 102 of the 227 EISs (44%) included some

discussion of how climate change would impact the project or its surrounding environment. The

key findings from that report were summarized as follows:

While greenhouse gas emissions from projects are frequently addressed in

EISs, the effects of climate change on the proposed projects are considered far less

often. Preparing agencies face considerable scientific uncertainty about the severity

and exact nature of climate change impacts at the regional level, and projections are

even more difficult at the local level. Infrastructure project EISs often briefly analyze

the impacts of climate change on the region or locality in which the project is

located without addressing the direct impacts of climate change on the project itself.

Climate impacts in the project region are often discussed in order to consider their

effect on a resource which the project might also impact. For example, an EIS for a

project which adversely impacts surrounding wetlands may also address climate

change impacts on the wetland and consider the cumulative effect of both climate

and project impacts on the wetland.

119 Patrick Woolsey, Consideration of Climate Change in Federal EISs, 2009-2011 (Center for Climate Change Law 2012).

120 As noted in the paper, “[t]his category includes the effects of rising sea levels and water tables, increased flooding,

extreme weather events, greater temperature variations, water shortages, reduced snowpack and other occurrences that

require adaptation.” Id. at 6.



The degree to which impacts of climate change on a project are included

correlates more with project type and location than with the preparing agency. The

potential effects of climate change on a project are most likely to be considered for

coastal or water-related projects (irrigation and reservoirs, ports, bridges, waterfront

development), military projects and land management or forestry EISs. Most

commonly, impacts such as sea level rise and flooding are included for projects in

coastal locations and water supply projects. Many types of coastal infrastructure are

vulnerable to sea level rise and increased storm intensity, including ports, coastal

nuclear reactors and military facilities. Projects in marine or coastal settings are

likely to consider the effects of sea level rise and increased storm intensity, as well

as impacts on marine habitats from rising sea temperatures. However, these impacts

are often considered not in relation to the project itself, but rather to its surrounding

environment.

In EISs which do not involve coastal sites or water projects, analysis of the

impact of climate change on a project is often limited to a brief discussion of climate

impacts on wildlife species or vegetation as a secondary or compounding impact.

Projects in desert areas, such as solar energy projects or transmission lines, are also

likely to discuss the impacts of climate change and temperature increase on the

surrounding ecosystem, although impact analyses are often limited to their effect on

the environment rather than on the project.121

In March 2013, the Center published a more targeted study on the analysis of climate

change-related water impacts in federal EISs prepared between January and September of 2012.”122

This study examined how federal EISs addressed issues relating to water usage, water shortage

and drought, sea level rise and water tables, and flooding. The study found that there was

considerable variation in the treatment of these issues across different projects and agencies.

Unsurprisingly, projects with more significant water usage impacts tended to include a more

extensive discussion of water-related issues in the EIS—but this discussion did not necessarily

include any analysis of how climate change may impact future water supply. The one context

where climate change did frequently factor into the analysis was when sea level was assessed for

coastal infrastructure projects—however, the quality of the discussion varied considerably, and

some coastal projects did not even discuss sea level rise.123

121 Id. at 15-16.

122 Cathy Li, Discussion of Climate Change-Related Water Impacts in Federal Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), January-

September 2012 (Center for Climate Change Law 2013).

123 Id. at 9.



4.2 Defenders of Wildlife Study of Federal EISs, 2011-2012

In 2013, Defenders of Wildlife published its own study on the assessment of climate change

impacts in environmental impact statements. 124 Defenders of Wildlife analyzed 154 Final EISs

released between July 2011 and April 2012 to determine how well these documents incorporated

the climate adaptation elements of the 2010 draft guidance. Their study included EISs in a range of

categories including land and resource management actions as well as projects involving the

construction of buildings and infrastructure.

They formulated ten questions based on the various elements discussed in the guidance,

intending to score the EISs on how well they answered these questions. 125 However, they

discovered that only 10% of the EISs included enough information to even apply the questions.126

As discussed below, we reached a similar conclusion during our review of federal EISs prepared

between 2012 and 2014, and therefore relied on five broader questions for our general evaluation of

the EISs. The key findings from the Defenders of Wildlife study were as follows:

26 of the EISs (17%) included limited consideration of climate impacts to the project and

affected environment.127

Eight (5%) demonstrated a recognition of potential climate change impacts, but considered

them only with respect to the outcome of the project itself, while ignoring climate change

impacts on the resources affected by the project.

38 EISs (25%) contained a discussion of climate change which only considered the project’s

GHG emissions footprint, with no mention of the potential impacts to either the project or

affected resources, let alone consideration of adaptation measures for those impacts.

124 Defenders of Wildlife, Reasonably Foreseeable Futures: Climate Change, Adaptation and NEPA (2013).

125 The questions included: (1) does the EIS include relevant and recent information? (2) Does the EIS include downscaled

modeling? (3) Are projections made using appropriate timescales? (4) Does the EIS discuss the impact of climate change

on the reasonably foreseeable future condition of affected resources under No Action? (5) Does the EIS discuss the

impact of climate change on the reasonably foreseeable future condition of affected resources under the various

alternatives? (6) Does the EIS discuss the impact of climate change on the success or outcome of the proposed action? (7)

Does the EIS identify and work through climate related uncertainties? (8)_ Does the project include a monitoring

program adequate to detect effects of climate change? (9) Does the agency discuss the impact of climate change on

vulnerable human communities? (10) Does the mitigation section of the EIS discuss ways to mitigate the project’s

impacts to reduce climate change effects? Id. at 8-9.

126 Id. at 3.

127 The discrepancy between this figure and the results of the 2009-2012 Sabin Center survey may be explained by two

factors: (1) the Defenders of Wildlife survey relied on a smaller EIS sample; (2) the Sabin Center survey examined

whether the EISs contained some discussion of how climate change would impact the project or the affected

environment, whereas the Defenders of Wildlife survey examined whether EISs considered the impact of climate change

on the project and the affected environment.



Nearly one-third contained a brief mention of climate change but failed to incorporate any

meaningful analysis of climate change mitigation or adaptation considerations.

19 (12%) did not mention climate change anywhere in the document.128

Defenders of Wildlife concluded that, in the absence of final CEQ guidance, most EISs did not

contain an adequate discussion of climate change impacts and adaptation considerations. 129

4.3 Sabin Center Study of Federal EISs, 2012-2014

The Sabin Center conducted a follow-up study of over 300 federal EISs prepared between

July 2012 and December 2014 to determine if climate change has become a more prevalent

consideration in these documents. The scope of that study is broader than the scope of this paper:

it covers all categories of EISs, including land management actions, and a variety of topics relating

to both mitigation and adaptation.

For the purposes of this paper, we selected 117 projects that involve public infrastructure

and construction, and applied a more targeted set of questions to those projects:

(1) Does the EIS contain any discussion of how climate change will impact the project or its

surrounding environment?

(2) Does the EIS discuss how climate change will impact the quantity or quality of water

resources to be used or affected by the project?

(3) Does the EIS examine how climate change will impact the affected environment of the project,

taking into account the various environmental and human resources in the area?130

(4) Does the EIS examine the impacts of climate change on the project itself and any

implications that this may have for the resilience of the project or the environmental

consequences of the project?

(5) Did the analysis of climate change impacts influence the agency’s final decision in any way,

e.g., by causing the agency to: (i) conclude that an otherwise insignificant impact was

significant, (ii) modify design features, or (iii) implement additional mitigation measures?

The results of this survey are summarized in Table 4.0 (see next page), and discussed in further

detail below.

128 Defenders of Wildlife (2013), supra note 124, at 3.

129 Id.

130 EISs that merely acknowledged that an impact such as sea level rise may occur in the project area without discussing

how it would affect one or more aspects of the local environment were not included under this category. Similarly, EISs

that only discussed impacts on water supply (without discussing impacts on aquatic ecosystems or species) were not

included since this issue was captured in the second category.



Table 4.0 - Consideration of Climate Change Impacts in Federal EISs Involving Physical

Infrastructure, July 2012 – December 2014

EIS Category Total

EISs

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

# % # % # % # % # %

Low-Carbon Electric

Generation 13 12 92% 11 85% 11 85% 3 23% 1 7%

Electric

Transmission 8 4 50% 2 25% 4 50% 1 12.5% 1 12%

Energy Development

and Mining 26 23 88% 14 54% 22 85% 8 31% 4 15%

Transportation 40 10 25% 0 0% 4 10% 4 10% 1 2%

Public Works 18 16 88% 13 72% 9 50% 12 67% 9 50%

Buildings and Real

Estate 12 7 58% 6 50% 4 33% 4 33% 2 16%

Total (all categories) 117 72 61% 46 39% 54 46% 32 27% 18 15%

Key Findings - The percentage of EISs that discuss the impacts of climate change has

grown, but the scope of the analysis varies quite substantially between project categories. There

were also considerable differences between EISs within any given category. Moreover, although it

has become increasingly common for agencies to acknowledge the impacts of climate change on a

project or the surrounding environment, it is still quite rare for agencies to actually incorporate this

into final decisions about project design, selection of alternatives, or mitigation measures—only

15% of the EISs indicated that climate change considerations had factored into these final decisions

about how to go forward with the project.

The chief justification for ignoring the impacts of climate change on a project and the

surrounding environment was that the project would not generate a significant level of GHG

emissions.131 In some EISs, it also appeared that there was confusion about the difference between

evaluating the contribution of a project to climate change and evaluating the impacts of climate

change on the project. For example, in response to an EPA request to “evaluate climate change

effects on” a proposed dam modification, USACE responded: "The proposed project’s impact on

131 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Energy, Final Champlain Hudson Power Express EIS 5-188 – 5-189 (2014) (“At present,

there is no methodology that would allow DOE to estimate the specific impacts (if any) this increment of climate change

would produce near the proposed CHPE Project or elsewhere”).



greenhouse gas emissions on climate change was evaluated in the DEIS. It is located in section 3.5 -

Air Quality, in the DEIS."132

Low-Carbon Electric Generation – The low-carbon electric generation category included

hydroelectric, solar, wind, nuclear, and carbon capture and sequestration facilities. 92% (12/13) of

the EISs for electric generation projects contained some discussion of how climate change would

affect the project or surrounding environment, and 85% (11/13) included a discussion of how

climate change would affect water resources required for the project. However, only three of the

EISs in this category actually analyzed how those impacts may influence the construction or

operation of the facilities, and only one EIS provided for modified design features to address those

impacts. Specifically, the EIS for the Blythe Solar Project in Palm Springs, CA noted the impacts

that climate change may have on water supply in the context of both the proposed action and

alternatives, and identified mitigation measures that could be implemented if there was reduced

recharge to the underlying groundwater basin.133 Interestingly, many of the EISs for renewal of

Nuclear Plants contained a detailed description of climate impacts on the surrounding

environment (e.g., water resources), but did not discuss the subsequent implications for power

plant performance or environmental consequences such as runoff and spill risk.

Figure 4.1 – Climate Impact Assessment in Low Carbon Electric Generation Projects

132 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification Project, To Remediate Seismic, Seepage, and

Hydrologic Deficiencies in the Main Dam, Spillway and Auxiliary Dam FEIS A-17 (2012).

133 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Modified Blythe Solar Power Project, Proposed

Amendment to Right-of-Way Grant FEIS 4.3-8 (2014).

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Q1: Any discussion of CC impacts on project

or affected environment

Q2: CC impacts on water resources

Q4: CC impacts on affected environment

Q4: CC impacts on project

Q5: Discussion of how CC impacts

influenced significance determinations,

project design, or alternatives selection



Electric Transmission – Half (4/8) of the EISs for electric transmission projects contained

some discussion of how climate change would impact the project or its surrounding environment,

but this discussion tended to be quite limited. For example, one EIS merely included a paragraph

about the global impacts of climate change and then briefly mentioned that climate change may

impact one of the species located in the project area.134 Another EIS included a very detailed

description of the impacts of climate change in the state where the project was located (Arizona),

but did not address any corresponding implications for the construction, operation or maintenance

of the transmission line, or for the environmental resources that may be impacted by the project.135

Figure 4.2 – Climate Impact Assessment in Electric Transmission Projects

Energy Development and Mining – This category included coal, oil and gas development;

mining projects; and associated infrastructure (e.g., tailings facilities, pipelines, and liquefaction

projects). 88% (23/26) of the projects reviewed contained some discussion of climate change

impacts, 85% (22/26) provided a summary of climate impacts on the affected environment, and

54% (14/26) evaluated impacts on water resources required for the project. The quality of the

discussion varied substantially, perhaps due to the diversity of projects within this category. Some

EISs, like those prepared for Keystone XL, the Rosemont Copper Mine, and the Tarmac King Road

Limestone Mine, contained an extremely detailed analysis of how climate change could impact

both the project and the surrounding environment. The Tarmac King Limestone Mine also

134 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Antelope Valley Station to Neset Transmission FEIS 3-41, 4-32 (2014).

135 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, APS Sun Valley to Morgan 500/230kV Transmission

Line FEIS 3-12, 3-16 (2013).

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

1 2 3 4 5






Q5: Discussion of how CC impacts influenced

significance determinations, project design, or

alternatives selection



included a mitigation plan with specific measures to address the impacts of climate change on the

surrounding environment – e.g., “the [mitigation plan] will provide potential replacement habitat

for salt marsh and coastal hydric hammock in the event of continued climate change and sea level

rise.”136 In contrast, the EIS for an expansion of the Greens Creek Mine Tailings Disposal Facility

Expansion, located on a small island off the coast of Alaska, briefly mentioned climate impacts but

concluded that it was unnecessary to analyze these in the context of the project.137

Figure 4.3 – Climate Impact Assessment in Energy Development and Mining Projects

Transportation – Surprisingly, only 25% of EISs prepared for transportation projects

considered any climate-related impacts. Issues such as increased average and extreme

temperatures and increased precipitation were largely ignored for this category. The EISs for

transportation projects located in coastal areas typically acknowledged the potential for sea level

rise, but only one project was specifically designed to withstand future sea level rise (the San

Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project, which was a joint EIS/EIR prepared under both NEPA

and CEQA).138 The other EISs that identified climate impacts either concluded that these would not

interfere with the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure or simply ignored these in final

determinations about project design and alternatives selection. One noteworthy example is the EIS

for the replacement of the Harbor Bridge and certain sections of US Highway 181 in Corpus

136 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine FEIS, Appendix G: Mitigation Plan 2 (2013).

137 U.S. Forest Service, Greens Creek Mine Tailings Disposal Facility Expansion FEIS 3-201, 3-301 - 3-302 (2013).

138 San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority and the U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Transit Administration, Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project, Final EIS and Record of

Decision/Environmental Impact Report (2014).

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

1 2 3 4 5

Q1: Any discussion of CC impacts on project or

affected environment









Christi, Texas (a coastal town). That EIS contained several general statements acknowledging

projections of sea level rise in the area, but did not analyze the structural impact of sea level rise on

the proposed project or alternatives.139

Figure 4.4 – Climate Impact Assessment in Transportation Projects

Public Works – The EISs in this category included water management, storm management,

navigation, and landscape restoration projects, most of which were implemented by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE). 89% (16/18) of the projects in this category mentioned the impacts of

climate change on the project, and 73% (13/18) discussed the impact of climate change on water

resources required for the project, but only 50% (9/18) provided additional details on how these

impacts may affect the surrounding environment. Interestingly, this was the only category where

more of the EISs (67%, 12/18) discussed the impact of climate change on the project itself as opposed

to the impacts of climate change on the surrounding environment. Because many of these projects

dealt with water management, changes in rainfall patterns were discussed more than any other

impacts. Sea level rise also factored into the analysis of coastal projects.

Whereas climate change rarely factored into the final decision-making process in other EIS

categories, 50% (9/18) of the EISs reviewed in this category indicated that consideration of climate

change impacts had influenced the final design of the project. Overall, the EISs in this category

contained the most comprehensive and analytical assessment of climate change impacts and their

139 Federal Highway Administration, Texas Division, and the Texas Department of Transportation, Corpus Christi

District, US 181 Harbor Bridge Project: From Beach Avenue to Morgan Avenue at the Crosstown Expressway Final EIS /

Section 4(f) Evaluation 3-97, 3-99, 3-101 (2014).

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

1 2 3 4 5











implications for project operation. One noteworthy example is the Arkansas Valley Conduit in

Colorado, which considered the impact of climate change on the operation of the project (and

water resources required of the project), as well as the impact of climate change on every aspect of

the affected environment.140 This was one of two projects in the category that was implemented by

the Bureau of Reclamation; the rest were implemented by USACE.

Figure 4.5 – Climate Impact Assessment in Public Works Projects

Buildings and Real Estate – This category included land use planning actions and private

sector construction projects requiring a federal permit. 58% (7/12) of the EISs mentioned the

impacts of climate change on the project or surrounding environment. 50% (6/12) described the

impacts of climate change on water resources required for the project, and 33% (4/12) provided

additional details on how these impacts would affect the surrounding environment. The quality of

the analysis varied substantially. Two of the projects contained an in-depth analysis of climate

impacts as well as modified design features to account for those impacts. The first, the Halletts

Point Rezoning Project, fell within the land covered by New York City’s new regulations requiring

consideration of climate impacts and sea level rise for new development as well as SEQRA and

CEQR. It included a detailed discussion of flood risk and sea level rise for a waterfront

development project. 141 The second, the Cloverdale Rancheria Casino Project, assessed the

significance of climate impacts with respect to each alternative and discussed how mitigation

140 Bureau of Reclamation, Arkansas Valley Conduit Long-Term Excess Capacity Master Contract FEIS -5 - 4-9; 4-11; 4-36;

4-37; 4-44; 4-76 - 5-77; 4-84; 4-100 - 4-101; 4-109 - 4-110; 4-138 - 4-139; 4-150; 4-161; 4-163; 4-170 (2013).

141 New York City Department of City Planning and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),

Halletts Point Rezoning FEIS 17-9 – 17-14 (2013).

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

1 2 3 4 5

Q1: Any discussion of CC impacts on project or

affected environment









measures would address any potentially significant impacts.142 Both of these EISs are discussed in

greater detail below.

Figure 4.6 – Climate Impact Assessment in Building and Real Estate Projects

4.3.1. Trends and Best Practices in Federal EISs, 2012-2014

The EISs that discussed climate change impacts were analyzed to identify trends and best

practices. For the purposes of this analysis, we considered eight of the ten questions originally put

forth by Defenders of Wildlife in their survey of federal EISs:

(1) Does the EIS include relevant and recent information?

(2) Does the EIS include downscaled modeling?

(3) Are projections made using appropriate timescales?

(4) Does the EIS discuss the impact of climate change on the reasonably foreseeable future

condition of affected resources under No Action?

(5) Does the EIS discuss the impact of climate change on the reasonably foreseeable future

condition of affected resources under the various alternatives?

(6) Does the EIS discuss the impact of climate change on the success or outcome of the

proposed action?

(7) Does the EIS identify and work through climate related uncertainties?

(8) Does the project include a monitoring program adequate to detect effects of climate

change?

Several of these questions involve subjective determinations (e.g., as to the relevancy of data, what

constitutes a “downscaled” impact model, and the appropriateness of timescales), and thus it was

142 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians’ Proposed 65-Acre

Fee-to-Trust Acquisition and Resort Casino Project FEIS (2013) at 4.4-8, 4.4-14, 4.4-19, 4.4-25, 4.4-31.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

1 2 3 4 5











not possible to conduct a quantitative analysis using this rubric. Rather, we focused on a

qualitative examination of how EISs in our sample selection addressed these issues.

1. Quality of Data - The EISs typically relied on the most recent data available from the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Global Change Research Program

(USGCRP), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal

agencies. The EISs also used data from academic articles and other climate assessments to evaluate

regional and local climate impacts, where such resources were available. These data were most

frequently used to develop multiple scenarios for assessing climate impacts. However, the EISs did

not always explain how they were using this data in their analysis, nor did they disclose all of the

underlying assumptions and uncertainties associated with the data.

2. Geographic scale of analysis - The EISs relied on regional climate projections for their

analysis, since this was the most local scale at which credible data was available.

3. Timeframe for Analysis – The EISs used the projected duration of the project as the

timeframe for analyzing climate impacts. These typically fell within 50-100 years. Several EISs

distinguished between short- mid- and long-term impacts, but they generally did not attempt to

specify precisely what impacts would fall within a given period due to the inherent uncertainty of

this analysis.

4. Impact of Climate Change on Baseline Environmental Conditions and the No Action

Alternative – There was significant variation in terms of: (i) whether impacts on baseline

environmental conditions were considered, (ii) how these impacts were considered, and (iii) where

this analysis was located in the EIS. Some EISs discussed climate change in the description of the

affected environment, and others discussed this only in the context of cumulative impacts or in a

separate section that dealt with climate change. There were a few exemplary EISs that integrated

climate impact considerations into the discussion of various affected resources (e.g., ground water,

surface water, biological diversity, etc.)—this analysis was typically more informative than EISs

that only discussed climate change in a separate section. Even within individual EISs, there was a

lack of consistency in terms of where and how climate impacts were addressed—for example, an

EIS may list certain climate impacts in the context of one aspect of the affected environment, and

ignore climate impacts in the context of other affected resources.



5. Impact of Climate Change on Preferred and Other Alternatives – As noted in Table 4.0,

only 27% of the EISs actually discussed the impact of climate change on the proposed project.

There were only a handful of exemplary EISs (several of which are highlighted below) that actually

discussed impacts on other alternatives, and whether those alternatives might be more resilient to t

hose impacts. In the vast majority of EISs, climate change impacts had no bearing on the initial

identification of alternatives or the final decision on which alternative to implement.

6. Impact of Climate Change on the Outcome or Success of the Proposed Action – This

issue was discussed in some EISs, but the analysis tended to be quite brief. The EISs that

confronted this issue at all would typically acknowledge that climate change may affect project

performance or environmental outcomes but then conclude that these effects were too speculative

for further analysis. Several EISs did examine the issue further, but ultimately concluded that

climate change would not alter the significance of environmental impacts or the performance of

the project. For example, many of the coastal infrastructure projects concluded that sea level rise

would not affect the project because critical structures and equipment would be located at a

sufficient height to withstand future sea level rise.

7. Uncertainty – Almost all of the EISs mentioned uncertainty, but the extent to which they

“worked through” that uncertainty varied substantially. The EISs with the most detailed analysis

used scenario modeling to address uncertainties, which typically corresponded with different

global climate models and emissions scenarios. The Keystone XL EIS took a precautionary

approach justified their conclusions about project impacts and design features by referring to

worst case scenarios of climate change.143

8. Monitoring – Aside from several coastal projects that included monitoring for coastal

storms, there were no EISs that included a specific monitoring program for climate change effects.

Based on this analysis, we identified several EISs which contained a particularly in-depth

analysis of climate change impacts. These are summarized in Table 4.4 (see next page). Language

from these EISs is also excerpted in Appendix C: Excerpts of Climate Change Risk Assessments in

Federal EISs.

143 U.S. Department of State, Keystone XL Project, Final Supplemental EIS (2014).



Table 4.4 – Federal EISs with Detailed Assessment of Climate Change Impacts

EIS Project Description Discussion of Climate Change Impacts

Arkansas Valley

Conduit FEIS

(2013)

Water supply pipeline in

the Arkansas River Basin,

consisting of over 200

miles of buried pipeline, a

water treatment facility,

and other related facilities.

Lead agency: U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation

EIA Law: NEPA

This EIS considered the impact of climate change on the operation

of the project and alternatives, as well as the impact of climate

change on each aspect of the affected environment. 144

The EIS contained a particularly detailed analysis of how climate

change may impact water yield in the Colorado river basin. This

analysis was used to evaluate the proposed action as well as the

no action alternative and one other proposed alternative.145

Cloverdale

Rancheria Casino

FEIS (2014)

Development of resort

casino in Cloverdale, CA

(64.52 acres).

Lead federal agency:

United States Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA)

EIA Laws: NEPA, CEQA

This EIS addressed how climate change would impact

significance determinations for the preferred alternative and all of

the other alternatives discussed in the EIS, and identified

mitigation measures as needed to address any potentially

significant impacts. This analysis focused on the impact of climate

change on water resources required for the project, flooding, and

storm events. Although the impact of climate change on

temperatures was briefly noted, it did not factor into the

comparison of alternatives.146

Halletts Point

Rezoning FEIS

(2013)

Mixed-used development

along the East River in

Astoria, Queens, New

York (9.66 acres).


Housing and Urban

Development (HUD)

EIA Laws: NEPA, SEQRA,

and CEQR.

This EIS contained a relatively detailed discussion of how sea

level rise and flooding may impact the proposed waterfront

development and possible risk mitigation measures. However,

the project proponent elected not to adopt certain risk mitigation

measures, such as situating the project at an elevation that would

be sufficient to prevent flooding in the context of anticipated sea

level rise to 2050 and 2100.147

Chapter 10 (natural resources) integrated climate change

considerations into the general discussion of how the project will

impact the surrounding environment. This discussion primarily

focused on sea level rise and flooding impacts, which were

considered in the discussion of the project’s impacts as well as the

no action alternative. The EIS noted that “true floodplain

boundaries may exist further inland than currently mapped as a

result of projected rises in sea level caused by global climate

change, but overall, floodplains as well as groundwater within

the project site are expected to remain largely unchanged.”

Chapter 17 (GHG Emissions) discussed the resilience of the

144 Bureau of Reclamation, Arkansas Valley Conduit Long-Term Excess Capacity Master Contract FEIS 4-5 - 4-12; 4-36; 4-

37; 4-44; 4-76 - 5-77; 4-84; 4-100 - 4-101; 4-109 - 4-110; 4-138 - 4-139; 4-150; 4-161; 4-163; 4-170 (2013).

145 Id. at 4-9 – 4-12. 146 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians’ Proposed 65-Acre

Fee-to-Trust Acquisition and Resort Casino Project FEIS (2013).

147 New York City Department of City Planning and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),

Halletts Point Rezoning FEIS (2013).



proposed project to climate change, focusing on coastal impacts

and flooding. The EIS noted that proposed project was situated

only 3 feet above the 100-year flood levels, which is still above the

projected sea level rise estimate of 1-2 feet by mid-century, but

“may be within the range of end-of-century 100-year flood

levels.” It specified that proposed buildings would be flood-

proofed and would utilize flood barriers on an as-needed basis. In

addition, it stated that the elevation of buildings would be

increased if FEMA updated flood maps before project

construction began. Finally, the EIS stated that: “to the extent

practicable and feasible, the proposed project would elevate

emergency generators, fuel pumps, and water, electricity, and gas

distribution well above future flood levels and flood-protect those

utility connections and fuel tanks that are required to be at lower

elevations.”

Keystone XL

Project, Final

Supplemental EIS

(2014)

875-mile pipeline project

that would extend from

Morgan, Montana, to

Steele City, Nebraska.

Lead federal agency: U.S.

Department of State

EIA Law: NEPA

Chapter 4 contained a section dedicated to evaluating climate

changes impacts on the construction and operation of the

proposed project.

The EIS identified three emissions scenarios—a high (A2)

scenario, a medium (A1B) scenario, and a low (B1) scenario. The

EIS preparers decided to take a “precautionary approach by using

the worst-case projections (A2 scenario) to ensure potential

impacts and outcomes [of climate change] are not

underestimated.”148

The EIS then reviewed anticipated climate impacts under a worst

case scenario for the two climate regions where the pipeline

would be located (the Dry Temperature climate region and the

Prairie climate region). The specific data underlying the climate

impact projections presented in in Appendix V, Literature

Review.

The EIS included climate projections that matched the anticipated

operational life of the project (50 years, 20-15-2065) as well as

projections from 2070-2099, to account for the possibility that the

pipeline would be in operation longer than anticipated.

Climate impacts were reviewed in two categories: (1) the direct

impacts of changing temperatures and precipitation on the

pipeline, and (2) the impact of climate change on the affected

environment, including soils, water resources (surface and

ground), wetlands, terrestrial vegetation, fisheries, wildlife and

threatened and endangered species, land use, socioeconomics,

cultural resources, air quality and noise, and potential releases.

Suncreek Specific

Plan FEIS (2012)

Mixed-use development

and supporting

infrastructure

improvements in Rancho

Cordova, California (1,265

acres).


This EIS contained a detailed assessment of multiple climate

impacts, including: increased average temperatures; changes in

the timing, amount, and form (rain versus snow) of precipitation;

changes in the timing and amount of runoff; reduced water

supply; deterioration of water quality; elevated sea level; and

agricultural changes.

For each impact, the EIS discussed: (i) the status of current

148 U.S. Department of State, Keystone XL Final Supplemental EIS (2014) at 4.14 - 4.19.



USACE

EIA Laws: NEPA, CEQA.

scientific information and adapt about past trends; (ii) projected

future changes and the accuracy and variability of modeling

results, including identification of results presumed too

speculative for conclusive analysis; and (iii) potential for the

environmental effects of climate change to affect the proposed

project alternative, based on both the certainty or uncertainty of

modeling results and the physical nature of the effect.

The EIS also noted that climate change may also impact energy

supply but did not analyze this issue, explaining that these

impacts were too speculative to assess how they might influence

the proposed project.

The EIS relied on multiple global warming scenarios based on

different global climate models and emissions scenarios. Relied

on state-level (California) projections when these were available,

and compared these to global projections.149

Tarmac King Road

Limestone Mine

FEIS (2013)

Proposed mining

approximately 3,900 acres

of a 4,800-acre area about

80 miles north of Tampa.

Lead agency: U.S Army

Corps of Engineers

EIA Laws: NEPA

This EIS contains a detailed description of how sea level rise may

impact the project area based on four different sea level rise

scenarios (baseline, low, intermediate, high). This analysis is

accompanied by maps of predicted sea-level rise conditions on

available topographic data with the project site superimposed.150

The EIS also included a mitigation plan (Appendix G) with

specific measures to address the impacts of climate change on the

surrounding environment – e.g., “the [mitigation plan] will

provide potential replacement habitat for salt marsh and coastal

hydric hammock in the event of continued climate change and sea

level rise.”151

5. WORKSHOP OUTCOMES AND CASE STUDIES

On June 18, 2015, The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law hosted a workshop at

Columbia Law School: “Protocols for Integrating Climate Risk Analysis into Environmental Impact

Assessment Procedures.” The workshop provided an opportunity for numerous stakeholders152 to

comment on an initial draft of the protocols presented in Section 6 of this paper,153 and to discuss

various opportunities and challenges associated with the consideration of climate change impacts

149 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Sacramento District, Suncreek Specific Plan FEIS (2013).

150 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine FEIS 3-52 – 3-57 (2013).

151 Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine FEIS, Appendix G: Mitigation Plan 2 (2013).

152 The stakeholders who were present at the June 18 workshop included representatives from the Council on

Environmental Quality and other federal agencies, state agencies, EIA consulting groups, environmental organizations,

and academic institutions.

153 The protocols were subsequently revised based on input from the workshop stakeholders.



during the environmental assessment process. Some of the specific topics that were covered at the

workshop included:

What are the existing tools and informational resources that can be used to project and

analyze impacts such as sea level rise and increased temperatures?

To what extent are agencies and EIS preparers already assessing the impacts of climate

change during environmental reviews?

How should agencies conduct this analysis and how would this translate to the

development of protocols or guidelines?

What is the best method for incorporating such protocols into the environmental review

process under NEPA and state equivalents?

The general consensus among participants was that agencies and project proponents are beginning

to address climate impacts in their environmental reviews, but that there is a great deal of

uncertainty as to exactly how such impacts can be evaluated in a manner that will be useful for

decision-makers and ensure that project proponents are satisfying any legal obligations under

NEPA and state equivalents. As such, the stakeholders were generally in favor of the development

of more detailed protocols that could be used as a supplement to the CEQ guidance as well as any

guidelines or directives issued at the state level.

Although some participants expressed concerns about the additional time and cost of

addressing climate impacts in environmental reviews, most felt that this analysis could be

structured in a way such that it would facilitate better decision-making without imposing an

undue burden on the project proponent. Some of the participants did note that the difficulty of

obtaining relevant data on climate change impacts could pose a barrier to effectively conducting

this analysis. Thus, they recommended that one priority for federal and/or state policy-makers

should be to compile the most current projections of on-the-ground climate change impacts,

conduct vulnerability assessments, and make information readily available to government

agencies and the public.

Several participants also presented case studies of projects where climate change

vulnerability assessments and resilience measures were incorporated into the environmental

review of the project. These cases are presented below.



5.1 Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) was amended in 2009 to require the

consideration of GHG emissions and climate change impacts in environmental assessments. The

state also published a Draft MEPA Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Policy in 2014, which

identifies some of the key impacts that should be evaluated in MEPA reviews and calls for the

preparation of a “climate impact assessment” to “evaluate how a project may be impacted by

climate change related events and how the project itself may contribute to, or reduce, climate

change impacts.”154

Since 2012, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office has conducted

environmental reviews of approximately 50 projects that address climate change adaptation and

resiliency issues.155 One example is the Redevelopment of the Government Center Garage project

in downtown Boston.156 The project involved redeveloping an old garage structure with transit-

oriented, mixed-used phased development.

As part of the environmental review process for this project, the design team considered

the potential impacts of climate change (predicted sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity

of precipitation events, and extreme heat events) on the project and associated transportation

infrastructure.157 Based on this analysis, the design team concluded that the impacts of sea level

rise would need to be considered for all project components (building elements), except one

component which would be situated above even the highest scenario of sea level rise.158 The

analysis also revealed that the project could be impacted by more intense rainfall events, heat

waves, and droughts.

154 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Draft MEPA

Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Policy 5 (2014), available at http://www.lawandenvironment.com/wp-

content/uploads/sites/5/2014/11/MEPA-Climate-Adaptation-and-Resiliency-Policy-November-2014-DRAFT-

.pdf.

155 Deirdre Buckley, MEPA Director, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

(EEA), Presentation at Columbia Law School Workshop: Protocols for Integrating Climate Risk Analysis into

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures (June 18, 2015).

156 Final Environmental Impact Report, Redevelopment of the Government Center Garage, EEA No. 15134

(2014), available at http://www.hyminvestments.com/images/GCG_FEIR_FINAL-09152014.pdf.

157 FEIS Redevelopment of the Government Center Garage at 2-22.

158 FEIS at 2-22.



The design team used the results of the analysis to identify potential design elements to

mitigate the effects of climate change during the early stages of planning and design. The

following resiliency measures were noted in the final EIR for the project: 159

Sea Level Rise and Flood Risk

Placing critical electrical and telecommunications equipment above the first floor, thus

providing resiliency during flood events

Stormwater harvesting to reduce the amount of stormwater run-off and supplement on-

site irrigation and water needs for air conditioning

Modified elevator locations and elevations

Placing air intake and exhaust areas at least one level above ground-floor

Modified ventilation system design

Installing hard flooring materials on all first floors

Flood protection for emergency generators and fuel supplies

Measures to reduce flood risk at the subway station and bus station that would service

the development project, including: the incorporation of flood-hardening measures,

additional surface drainage elements that could direct stormwater away from the

transit facilities, increasing the proposed grade to mitigate potential sudden rainfall

events

Rising Temperatures

Designing residential units for improved natural ventilation (i.e., operable windows)

Altered HVAC design 160

Green roof to help mitigate extreme heat waves and reduce stormwater runoff

5.2 Washington

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) published Guidance for

NEPA and SEPA Project-Level Climate Change Evaluations in 2014. 161 This guidance document

outlines an analytical process for considering climate change impacts and provides template

language for conducting this assessment in the context of NEPA and SEPA reviews for WSDOT

projects. Washington State agencies and research institutions have also conducted numerous

159 FEIS at 2-23 – 2-24.

160 FIES at 2-23.

161 WSDOT, Guidance for NEPA and SEPA Project-Level Climate Change Evaluations (2014).



climate impact and vulnerability studies to better understand the manner in which climate change

may impact the state’s natural resources and built infrastructure, including transportation

infrastructure. 162 A representative from WSDOT noted that these studies have facilitated

meaningful assessment of climate change impacts for site-specific transportation projects.

The WSDOT representative also shared several examples of transportation projects where

climate change adaptation and resiliency considerations factored into the design of the project

and/or mitigation measures to address the project’s environmental impacts.

One example was the State Route (SR) 520 Pontoon Construction Project which involved

the building a new pontoon construction facility and subsequent construction of the pontoons

needed to replace a floating bridge. For this project, WSDOT relied on sea level rise projections

during the site selection and design of a wetland mitigation site.163 The pontoon construction

facility was also designed to “withstand the potential effects of long-term climate change.”164

Specifically, the facility incorporated features to protect the site from wave action during large

storm events and to protect the surrounding harbor from potential contamination with waters

from inside the facility during large storm events. The project developers also used native

vegetation, driftwood, and other natural materials to protect and stabilize the shoreline and

minimize erosion. Finally, the selected site was “graded to allow stormwater to run off the site

more easily and protect the site against rises in sea level and from waves during a large storm.”165

Another example was the Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR 99). The purpose of this project was to

replace a viaduct that ran along the shoreline of Elliot Bay in downtown Seattle. The FEIS for the

project discussed current research on projected sea level rise and other climate impacts over the

162 See, e.g., John MacArthur et al., Washington State Department of Transportation, Climate Change Impact Assessment for

Surface Transportation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (January 2012), available at

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/772.1.pdf; Washington State Department of Transportation,

Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment (November 2011), available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B290651B-

24FD-40EC-BEC3-EE5097ED0618/0/WSDOTClimateImpactsVulnerabilityAssessmentforFHWA_120711.pdf; Climate

Impacts Group, The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute

for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (M. McGuire Elsner et al.

eds., 2009), available at http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciareport681.pdf;

163 WSDOT and FHWA, Draft Wetland and Aquatic Resources Mitigation Report – Grass Creek Mitigation Site, Pontoon

Construction Project, SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program 6-42 (December 2010), available at http://co.grays-

harbor.wa.us/info/pub_svcs/PontoonProj/JARPA/JARPAAppendices/ApxG/Apx_G_101213.pdf.

164 WSDOT and FHWA, Final Environmental Impact Statement, SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program, SR 520 Pontoon

Construction Project, 3.6-11 (December 2010).

165 Id.



100-year design life of the facility. In addition, the FEIS indicated that climate considerations

would be incorporated into the final design of the project:

To ensure that our facilities can function as intended for their planned 50-, 70-, or

100-year lifespan, they should be designed to perform under the variable conditions

expected as a result of climate change. The standard design for this project has

incorporated features that will provide greater resilience and function with the

potential effects brought on by climate change. For example, drainage culverts may

need to be resized to accommodate more intense rainfall events or increased flows

due to more rapid glacial thawing.166

However, the FEIS did not confirm exactly which design features were selected to account for

climate change. Rather, it appeared to leave open the possibility of further modifications to design

features during the construction phase.

The FEIS for the Columbia River Crossing project provided a third example of how

WSDOT incorporated climate impact considerations into its environmental review process. The

purpose of this project was to replace the existing Interstate-5 crossing over the Columbia River.

The project team relied on research conducted by University of Washington’s Climate Impacts

Group (CIG) to assess future conditions in the project location. The available data indicated that:

Warmer winter temperatures in the Columbia River Basin would result in lowered

snowpack and higher winter base flows. Lower base flows were expected in the spring and

summer months, and an increased likelihood of more intense storms could increase the

chance of flooding.

Average annual precipitation was likely to stay within the range of 20th century variability.

Sea level rise in the Pacific Northwest would vary with regional rates of uplift, but would

be similar to the global average increase of 1.3 feet by 2100.

Climate change could negatively impact salmon and trout populations in the Columbia

River Basin, but climate change-induced impacts were anticipated to be less severe than

other human activities that destroy or degrade freshwater habitat.167

Each of these projected changes was addressed in the cumulative impacts section of the FEIS to

better understand how the project would affect protected species, water quality, and navigation.

166 Washington State Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and City of Seattle, Alaskan Way

Viaduct Replacement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation (July 2011), available at

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Library/Environmental.

167 Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Columbia River Crossing 3-446 (September 2011), available at

http://library.state.or.us/repository/2011/201109191128141/.



The FEIS also incorporated measures to address the cumulative impact of the project and

climate change on species, water quality, and navigation. These measures were included as part of

an overarching Columbia River Crossing Sustainability Strategy. The measures specifically relating

to climate change included:

Eco-system based climate change adaptation: locating new and modified transportation

and utility project components in a manner which would avoid fragmentation and

degradation of significant floodplain hydrology.

Stormwater management: restoring existing unused impervious paved areas to natural,

permeable, and vegetated conditions to the maximum extent possible, and including

treatment devices such as bioretention ponds, soil-amended bio-filtration swales, bioslopes,

and constructed treatment wetlands in the stormwater management design.

Bridge design: Designing the bridge to accommodate projected climate change-induced rise

in the Columbia River’s high water levels.168

The Columbia River Crossing project did not ultimately go forward as planned due to inadequate

funding, but the FEIS still provides insight into how climate impacts can be incorporated into

environmental reviews of major bridge projects.

5.3 New York

New York State has not adopted official laws or statewide guidance on the consideration of

climate change impacts in environmental reviews under SEQRA. However, the Commissioner of

the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) published a 2010 policy directing all

DEC staff to “identify potential adverse impacts from climate change” on all DEC programs,

“incorporate climate change adaptation strategies into applicable DEC programs, actions and

activities” and to “use the best available scientific information of environmental conditions

resulting from the impacts of climate change.” 169

One of the case studies presented at the workshop was the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Project, a proposed natural gas pipeline and associated infrastructure connecting an offshore

pipeline to an onshore delivery point in Queens County, New York. The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) was the lead agency on this project. FERC received a comment

168 Id. at 3-446 – 3-447.

169 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Commissioner’s Policy – Climate Change and DEC

Action (2010), available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/65034.html.



from EPA regarding the potential for flooding to occur at the metering and regulating facility for

the pipeline and how flood risk could be exacerbated by a potential increase in the frequency and

intensity of Category 3 to 5 storms due to climate change and sea level rise.170 The agency reviewed

the Post-Sandy Advisory Base Flood Elevation map published by the Federal Emergency

Management Authority (FEMA) and recent literature on likely sea level rise in NYC by 2100. Based

on this information, the facility was designed to ensure that the lowest floor elevation and all

equipment and wiring would be above the 100-year floodplain until 2085 (based on the highest sea

level rise projected by the IPCC at that time).171 The project proponent (Transco) also agreed to

monitor future hurricanes and shut down the facility in advance of any potential flooding.172

The FEIS for the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center / CUNY-Hunter College Science

and Health Professions Building provides another example of how climate change adaptation

considerations factored into the environmental review process. Recognizing that most of the

project would be located within the current 100-year floodplain, and that flooding may worsen as a

result of sea level rise and other coastal impacts, the project developers incorporated many flood

protection features into this project. Most of these features consisted of locating critical

infrastructure on upper floors or otherwise above anticipated future flood levels.173

6. MODEL PROTOCOLS

These model protocols were developed as a complement to CEQ’s guidance for considering

climate change effects under NEPA, but they could also be adapted for use in environmental

reviews conducted under state EIA laws.174 They are based on the legal and empirical research

presented in this paper, and have been revised to reflect input from the Stakeholder Workshop

discussed in Section 5.

170 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Rockaway Delivery Lateral and

Northeast Connector Projects (Docket Nos. CP13-36-000 and CP13-132-000) 4-4 (February 18, 2014).

171 Id. at 4-5.

172 Id. at 4-7.

173 NYC Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development et al., Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center –

CUNY/Hunter College Science and Health Professions Building FEIS 11-17 – 11-19 (2013).

174 NEPA terminology is used throughout the protocols. Many states use different terminology for the same concepts.



Model Protocols for Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on

the Built Environment under NEPA and State EIA Laws

Overarching Principles

1. Agencies should evaluate and disclose the impacts of climate change when conducting

environmental reviews in accordance with NEPA and its state equivalents. These impacts

should be considered in the approval of a categorical exclusion (CE), the preparation of an

environmental assessment (EA), and the scoping and preparation of an environmental

impact statement (EIS).

2. Agencies should assess the impacts of climate change in the following contexts:

a. Future baseline: Whether climate change may influence the future baseline conditions

which would exist in the absence of the proposed action (the no action alternative).

b. Project description: Whether the project may be vulnerable to the impacts of climate

change, taking into account the location of the project, the project's expected useful life,

and the resilience of design features, construction materials, operational processes, and

decommissioning processes.

c. Purpose and need for project: Whether climate change may influence the need for the

proposed project or the ability of the project to fulfill its intended purpose.

d. Affected environment and resources: Whether climate change may increase the

vulnerability of the affected environment and any natural and human resources that are

impacted by the project.

e. Implications for the environmental consequences of the project: Whether the impacts

of climate change may exacerbate the environmental consequences of the project or

generate new consequences which would not have otherwise occurred.

3. Due to the uncertainty of the pace and magnitude of climate change, agencies should take

a precautionary approach when assessing and disclosing the potential impacts of climate

change: they should evaluate impacts by using multiple scenarios, including the most

severe climate change projections developed by the IPCC and other authoritative bodies.

The probabilities of each of the scenarios should be disclosed if they can be estimated.

4. The timeframe for this analysis should reflect the anticipated duration of the project,

taking into account the operational lifetime as well as any decommissioning activities.



5. The scope and depth of this analysis should be proportional to the magnitude of the risk

posed by climate change and the correlated vulnerability of the action and its affected

environment to the impacts of climate change.

6. The analysis of climate change impacts should inform the selection of design features,

alternatives, site location, mitigation measures, and other aspects of the final decision

undertaken by the agency.

Categorical Exclusions

1. When reviewing existing or approving new categorical exclusion (CE) lists, agencies

should consider whether any existing CEs should be removed or modified as a result of

climate-related considerations. Specifically, agencies should consider whether the category

of actions may individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human

environment, taking into account the impacts of climate change on those actions and the

environmental settings in which they are typically located.

2. Before approving a CE for a particular action, agencies should consider whether the

impacts of climate change on the project and its affected environment constitute “unusual

circumstances” which will require the agency to conduct additional environmental studies

to determine whether the CE classification is proper. Specifically, agencies should consider

whether otherwise insignificant impacts may become significant due to the impacts of

climate change on the project and its affected environment.

Environmental Assessments

1. When preparing an environmental assessment (EA), agencies should:

a. Identify the potential impacts of climate change on the project and its affected

environment. To identify all relevant impacts, agencies should consider using a

checklist like that provided in Attachment A: Checklist for Identifying Climate Change

Impacts (see page 57).

b. Evaluate whether any of these impacts will influence the agency’s significance

determination (e.g., by altering the context or intensity of a particular impact). For

example, an agency could conclude that an otherwise insignificant risk of spills or

contamination from a hazardous waste facility located on a coastline will be significant

in light of sea level rise and increased storm intensity, or that an otherwise insignificant

impact on water resources will be significant in light of decreased stream flow caused

by precipitation and snowpack changes.



2. Agencies should also consider whether the impacts of climate change will have

implications for:

a. The purpose and need of the proposed project,

b. The selection of alternatives, and

c. The implementation of any mitigation measures that the agency has relied upon to

justify a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)

Step 1: Identifying Climate Change Impacts during the Scoping Process

1. The potential impacts of climate change on the project and its affected environment

should be identified and disclosed to the public during the scoping phase of an EIS. This

will enable agencies to receive public input on climate-related impacts that warrant

evaluation in the EIS before the publication of the draft EIS. To simplify the process, agencies

should consider using a checklist like that provided in Attachment A: Checklist for Identifying

Climate Change Impacts (see page 57).

2. During the scoping process, agencies should also solicit information from relevant

stakeholders regarding any climate-related considerations and local data or knowledge

that is relevant for the purpose of assessing the impact of climate change on the project

and its affected environment. Relevant stakeholders may include:

a. Other government agencies who are directly involved in the project;

b. Tribal, state and local authorities in the area where the project will be sited;

c. Any tribal, state or local agency or non-governmental entity with specific expertise on

climate change impacts in the area where the project will be sited; and

d. Members of the affected public.

3. When deciding how many resources to dedicate to the scoping and subsequent assessment

of climate change impacts, agencies should pay special attention to actions that are

particularly sensitive to climate change due to the nature of the action or the geographic

location where it will occur. To identify highly sensitive projects, agencies should consider:

a. Geographic location



i. Coastal projects;

ii. Projects in arid climates and regions subject to heat wave and/or drought; and

iii. Projects in areas that are frequently exposed to storms or flooding.

b. Nature of the project

i. Projects that require substantial water resources, e.g., electricity generation

facilities or water supply facilities;

ii. Projects that are particularly susceptible to increased temperatures, e.g., electric

transmission and distribution systems, residential buildings, hospitals, nursing

homes, and prisons;

iii. Projects that have particular risks which may be further compounded by climate

impacts, e.g., wastewater treatment facilities and hazardous and nuclear waste

facilities; and

iv. Critical facilities, such as hospitals and electric infrastructure.

Step 2: Evaluating the Impacts of Climate Change

After identifying the potential impacts of climate change on the project and its affected

environment, agencies should evaluate and disclose those impacts in accordance with the

following framework.

1. Evaluate the impacts of climate change on the affected environment of the proposed

action.

a. Identify sources of information and uncertainty: Identify scientific studies and

planning documents that contain information about the impacts of climate change

within the project area and the corresponding vulnerability of the local environment.

Identify any major information gaps or areas of uncertainty.

b. Summary of climate change impacts: Disclose any existing information about the

likelihood and severity of climate change impacts in the affected environment over the

duration of the project, and integrate this information into the description of the

environmental baseline (no action alternative). When making this disclosure, agencies

may incorporate by reference any scientific studies and planning documents, as long as

the materials are reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons in

accordance with 40 CFR § 1502.21.



c. Vulnerability and/or resilience of affected environment: Disclose any existing

information about the extent to which specific components of the affected environment

are vulnerable and/or resilient to the impacts of climate change. The environmental

components that should be reviewed include:

i. Natural systems that are affected by the project;

ii. Human systems that are affected by the project; and

iii. Key resources required for project and systems impacted by project (e.g., water

resources).

d. Address uncertainty by:

i. Describing impacts under a range of different scenarios, including any worst case

scenarios published by the IPCC and USGCRP;

ii. Considering past extremes as an indicator of future trends; and

iii. Complying with the regulatory guidelines for dealing with “incomplete or

unavailable information” in NEPA reviews (40 CFR § 1502.22).

e. Clearly state all underlying assumptions and sources of data used.

2. Describe how the proposed action will be affected by the impacts of climate change.

a. Identify project-specific impacts: Identify any climate change impacts that will directly

affect the physical or operational elements of the proposed project.

b. Assess project resilience: Determine whether any of the project-specific impacts may

have an adverse effect on the project (e.g., by impairing longevity and/or productivity)

and assess the resilience of the project with respect to those effects.

c. Project need and resources: Determine whether any of the project-specific impacts will

modify the need for the project or the resources that must be committed to the project.

d. Identify adaptation options: Identify design features or operational changes which

could be used to improve the resilience of the project to any adverse effects identified in

this analysis.

3. Determine whether the impacts described in step 1 or 2 will have implications for the

environmental consequences of the proposed project.

a. Implications for project impacts: Evaluate whether climate change may alter the nature

or magnitude of environmental impacts of the action or generate new impacts that

would not have otherwise occurred.



b. Implications for susceptibility of resources to project impacts: Evaluate whether any

of the environmental systems or resources that are affected by climate change will be

more susceptible (or resilient) to the adverse environmental consequences of the project

as a result of climate change.

4. Conduct a similar assessment for all reasonable alternatives to the project.

a. Environmental baseline: The no-action alternative should simply reflect the baseline

environmental analysis conducted in Step #1

b. Comparison of alternatives: For other alternatives, the agency should identify where

the analysis re: climate change impacts is the same as that conducted for the preferred

alternative, and should discuss any climate change impacts that may differ across

alternatives.

5. Identify resilience/adaptation measures when impacts are deemed significant or risks are

deemed unacceptable. Such measures may include the selection of a more resilient

alternative, modifications to the preferred alternative, or the implementation of actions to

mitigate adverse environmental impacts that are exacerbated by climate change.

a. Modified design elements: Consider opportunities to incorporate adaptation and

resilience into the design of the project, the operational plan for the project, and any

environmental management plans or mitigation measures that are implemented as part

of the project.

b. Siting decisions: Consider whether the project could be sited in an alternate location to

address concerns about the impacts of climate change and the implications of those

impacts for the environmental consequences of the project.

c. Adaptation measures with co-benefits: Consider adopting adaptation and resilience

measures that have environmental and/or economic co-benefits (e.g., building

insulation that improves energy efficiency).

d. Addressing uncertainty: To address uncertainty about future impacts, the agency

should consider: (i) whether to expressly incorporate monitoring and risk management

procedures into the final project or action, and (ii) whether to include provisions for

incremental adaptation measures that can be implemented in the event that certain

impacts do occur (e.g., operational changes)



Step 3: Justifying the Final Decision

1. In making its final decision, the agency should describe how the agency’s analysis of

climate change impacts on the action and the affected environment has influenced:

a. The selection of design features, operational practices, etc.;

b. The choice between the preferred alternative and other reasonable alternatives

(including the no action alternative); and

c. The selection of measures to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts that are

exacerbated or caused by climate change.

2. Monitoring for incremental adaptation measures: If an agency decides to mitigate climate-

related risks through a system of incremental adaptation measures (i.e., measures which are

conditioned on the occurrence of specific climate impacts), the agency should also include

adequate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to accompany these measures.

Step 4: Communicating Results to the Public

1. Clear communication of both analysis and decisional outcomes: The agency’s assessment of

climate change impacts and the manner in which this assessment has influenced the agency’s

final decision should be clearly communicated to the public in both the draft and final EIS.

2. Summary for public review: To better inform the public about the analysis conducted on

climate change impacts and risks, agencies should consider summarizing this information in

a table like that provided in Attachment B: Table Summarizing Climate Change Impacts and

Response Measures (see page 58).



Attachment A

Checklist for Identifying Climate Change Impacts

Climate-related phenomena Possible impact on project or

affected environment?

Temperature and

Humidity

Increased average temperatures

Increased peak temperatures (heat waves)

Freeze-thaw damage (e.g., melting permafrost)

Cold spells

Increased humidity

Precipitation Increased average precipitation in project area

Decreased average precipitation in project area

Increase in extreme precipitation events in project area

Drought

Increased precipitation in upstream area, modifying

flow quality or quantity of water resources in affected

env’t

Decreased precipitation upstream, modifying flow

quality or quantity of water resources in affected env’t

Change in the type of precipitation in project area or

upstream (e.g., rainfall instead of snow)

Storms Increased storm severity

Increased storm frequency

Increased uncertainty associated with storm patterns

Inland Flooding Inland flooding, erosion, and other on-the-ground

impacts from altered precipitation and storms

Coastal impacts Sea level rise

Higher storm surge

Coastal inundation, erosion, subsidence

Saltwater intrusion

Air Quality Reduced local air quality

Wildfire Greater wildfire risk due to heat and/or drought

impacts

Biodiversity Increased vulnerability of species and habitats

Invasive species

Public Health Threats to public health

Other Impacts Humidity



Attachment B

Table Summarizing Climate Change Impacts and Response Measures

Impact Likelihood Severity

Risk to

affected

env’t.

Risk to

project

Implications

for envtl.

impacts

Response

and

mitigation

Likelihood – The likelihood that a particular impact will occur within the project area (e.g., certain, almost certain, likely,

possible, unlikely, rare, or N/A).

Severity – The magnitude of the impact (e.g., minor, moderate, significant, severe).

Risk to affected environment – The extent to which the impact poses a risk to environmental systems and resources within the

affected environment (this could be assigned a ranking – e.g., low, medium, high – or a qualitative description could be provided

in the appropriate box).

Risk to project – The extent to which the impact poses a risk to the physical or operational aspects of the project (ranking or

qualitative description).

Implications for environmental impacts – Whether the climate-related impact will have implications for the environmental

consequences of the project.

Response and mitigation - Summary of how the agency intends to respond to and mitigate any risks to the affected

environment and project or implications for the environmental impact of the project (e.g., through modified design features,

selection of alternatives, or adoption of measures to mitigate an environmental impact).



CONCLUSION

Based on our review of federal EISs published between 2012 and 2014, it appears that the

incorporation of climate change considerations into EIA has become increasingly common in the

past few years. The fact that some of these EISs contain a robust discussion of climate change

impacts which informed final design decisions demonstrates that it is possible for agencies to

assess these impacts and draw meaningful conclusions, even in the context of extreme uncertainty

about climate change. There is also evidence that climate change is being mainstreamed into local

decision-making and city planning processes.175 This reinforces our conclusion that it is technically

feasible to account for climate change when making decisions about public infrastructure and

building projects.

Standardized protocols like those proposed in Section 6 would help to ensure that agencies

and other project proponents apply a rigorous and consistent assessment methodology when

evaluating climate change impacts. This would improve decision-making in the context of specific

projects while providing a broader and more detailed universe of information on climate change

impacts and assessment opportunities that can be used to inform future decision-making.

175 Urban Climate Change Governance Survey, http://www.urbanclimatesurvey.com/.

Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on the...

Documents

Transcript of Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on the...